Sign of the times of the day (Canada Edition): An elderly priest on the Acadian Peninsula has been barred from performing church services in the Bathurst diocese after he made remarks about homosexuals and women who have had an abortion:
In a letter written in French that he provided to the Telegraph-Journal, Gionet stated the sermon in question was about the destruction of the Church and the need to seek forgiveness for past sins:
“I said: ‘Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.’ (That’s when I pointed at my chest – through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that’s when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: ‘We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil’ … What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes.”
Bishop Valéry Vienneau has revoked Gionet’s rights to serve mass across the Diocese of Bathurst, a decision welcomed by Joseph Lanteigne, the openly gay mayor of Saint-Léolin.
“The action taken by the diocese is good and I know it isn’t easy for the diocese.”
Since the incident, Gionet has quit his position on the Saint-Léolin parish’s pastoral committee.
Rev. Wesley Wade, vicar general of the Diocese of Bathurst, said Gionet’s teachings don’t meet the diocese’s goal of following Christ’s example of loving unconditionally.
“We have to respect people on their own journey,” Wade said.
(Via: Rod Dreher)
September 27th, 2011 | 10:00 am
Melinda Selmys wrote an interesting On the Square piece last week called The Pastoral Response to Homosexuality for which she was mostly criticized by First Things commenters, so it will be no surprise if people here are outraged that anyone would object to a priest equating applause for a gay pride parade with applause for a terrorist attack.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:05 am
Bless Rod Dreher for making this point.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:11 am
David Nickol it will be no surprise if people here are outraged that anyone would object to a priest equating applause for a gay pride parade with applause for a terrorist attack.
You’re absolutely right, David. We Christians should be more appalled by an overheated analogy than we should be a parade that celebrates sinful behavior, shouldn’t we?
September 27th, 2011 | 10:30 am
We Christians should be more appalled by an overheated analogy than we should be a parade that celebrates sinful behavior, shouldn’t we?
Joe Carter,
Christians should be appalled by any rhetoric that unnecessarily drives those they consider to be “lost sheep” farther from the fold. Melinda Selmys says:
September 27th, 2011 | 10:36 am
David Nickol Christians should be appalled by any rhetoric that unnecessarily drives those they consider to be “lost sheep” farther from the fold.
So does that also apply to the rhetoric of Jesus since he drove people away with the “lost sheep” by preaching by sin?
I appreciate Selmys approach, but it isn’t the only valid one. The idea that we should not tell people that they are committing sin because it might offend them and turn them off is simply not consistent with orthodox Christianity.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:52 am
Selmy’s article clearly describes her position: “What I was trying to explain is the harsh pastoral tone so often taken in early and medieval writings on the subject of homosexuality.”
Some comments implied the reader had elided “early and medieval” and replaced it with “contemporary.” Hence the case of some of the comments on that article attempting to argue that nothing has changed, pastorally, since at least St. Peter Damian, and a different pastoral approach is required.
This article here is indicative of the “new” pastoral approach: DADT – Don’t antagonize: don’t talk.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:53 am
So does that also apply to the rhetoric of Jesus since he drove people away with the “lost sheep” by preaching by sin?
I am trying to think of an encounter between Jesus and an individual sinner during which he said something that drove the sinner away. Nothing comes to mind.
The idea that we should not tell people that they are committing sin because it might offend them and turn them off is simply not consistent with orthodox Christianity.
There is a difference between talking about sin and making an analogy between a gay pride parade and a terrorist attack. Rod Dreher himself acknowledges that.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:00 am
For the record, I don’t think the priest’s analogy was overheated, but it is not unreasonable to think so. What is offensive to me is the idea that the old man had his priestly vocation effectively stripped from him because he defended church teaching using rhetoric that may have — may have — stepped over a rhetorical line.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:09 am
David Nickol I am trying to think of an encounter between Jesus and an individual sinner during which he said something that drove the sinner away. Nothing comes to mind.
John 6:64-65:
September 27th, 2011 | 11:18 am
What is offensive to me is the idea that the old man had his priestly vocation effectively stripped from him because he defended church teaching using rhetoric that may have — may have — stepped over a rhetorical line.
Rod,
Perhaps we all can agree that even if the priest’s rhetoric was “over the top” (I think it was, you think it wasn’t), he did not misstate any fundamental teachings of the Church, and prohibiting him from saying mass seems an extreme reaction.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:23 am
I am trying to think of an encounter between Jesus and an individual sinner during which he said something that drove the sinner away. Nothing comes to mind.
How about this? At that statement [the rich man's] face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. (From Mark 10:17-31.)
As Joe pointed out, there are numerous instances where people, offended by Jesus teaching, left.
That aside, the priest wasn’t involved in an encounter with an individual, who turned away. He was preaching to his parish. Jesus certainly said things while preaching that drove sinners away.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:38 am
Not to mention all the “brood of vipers,” “whitewashed sarcophagus,” “woe unto you who” stuff. It was not aimed at individuals, generally, but as Jack Perry points out, this priest wasn’t speaking to individuals, either.
There is of course pastoral judgment to be used in which kind of rhetoric to use when, and the harsh stuff should almost certainly be used more sparingly than the gentler speech. But to reject categorically the appropriateness of harsh rebuke and strong metaphor in preaching is to reject Jesus’ own preaching at points.
September 27th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
Does this old priest get points for including himself among Catholic sinners?
September 27th, 2011 | 1:06 pm
Does this old priest get points for including himself among Catholic sinners?
Among most sectors of today’s North American Church, yes, but they’re more akin to the points you get on your driver’s license. ;-)
September 27th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
Did ya ever notice that when those that lean to the port side get all worked up with over-heated rhetoric and such it is called “being prophetic,” but when those that lean to the starboard side do the same it is called “being judgmental.” I’m just sayin’!
September 27th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
Let’s just cut to the chase. I suspect this old priest was silenced because he dared to do the indefensible by actually offending those who should be offended. Those that dare speak of sin are the wrongly shamed. It`s the same scene being played out by different actors in countlesss venues.
It is tragic that his weak-spined bishop apparently lacks the fortitude to support his faithful priests and would rather lick the boots of the cultural elitists. Another sad exmple of the miserable culture that is ours.
September 27th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
One has to suspect that there is more backstory here, whether there is political stuff at work in his bosses wanting him out, or whether he perhaps has crossed the line before, because this seems more than a bit extreme of a reaction for a first time offense if the reports of what were said are accurate.
I remember once as a kid a very popular priest giving a sermon that Satan was happy about the way Christmas is celebrated in modern society. Talk about unpastoral! People were NOT happy.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:03 pm
Given the hyper-PC climate that prevails in Canada, my first response when I saw the lede was that the priest had been removed from his position by a government agency, or had been charged by Canada’s version of the Inquisition. It seems that if his rhetoric was considered excessive, the bishop should have instructed him to explain himself, and Church teaching, in a more appropriate manner. It seems that, instead, the bishop has decided to silence those who stand up for the traditional teaching of the church.
Let us hope that he is close to retirement age and a braver man will take his place.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:18 pm
The teachings of Christianity have always been offensive to some people. It was extremely offensive to many who were dedicated to polytheism. It was extremely offensive to many Jews. The suggestion that people should live by the teachings of a man who ended up getting crucified was incredibly offensive to anyone who had witnessed a crucifixion — “Whatever that guy said to do, it is the last thing I want to do, if that’s what happens to you.” And those who said things like that then saw His followers get crucified. This did not make things any easier for the Church.
Even so, the Church boldy proclaimed Christ crucified, refused to worship false gods and took its lumps for doing so. They were more concerned with being faithful to the Spirit within Church than with whether doing so would be offensive to some people. They spoke the truth in love, which absolutely does not mean that doing so won’t be offensive. Christ always spoke the truth in love and yet offended others to the extent that they crucified Him. The contemporary Church seems to have forgotten that. Christ promised His followers they would be hated, slandered and persecuted — which does not indicate that if we live according to His teachings and speak the truth in love as He did we won’t offend anybody. The Church simply needs to be faithful to the Spirit within it Who will then take care of everything else.
There is just no way to teach the truth about abortion and homosexuality without offending anybody. That priests are getting chastized by their bishops for simply teaching the truth about these matters is a classic example of the world having converted the Church instead of the reverse.
September 27th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
I think it is reasonable to suspect that this priest was silenced for these imprudent remarks. But it’s also possible we are cheering/frowning at a “last straw” moment.
It doesn’t seem fair to fire someone, for example, for being late for work. But if it happens two mornings out of three, some people might wonder what took the boss so long.
September 27th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
“They spoke the truth in love, which absolutely does not mean that doing so won’t be offensive. Christ always spoke the truth in love and yet offended others to the extent that they crucified Him. The contemporary Church seems to have forgotten that.”
I agree that this is true, so I wonder what the vicar general means when he says “Gionet’s teachings don’t meet the diocese’s goal of following Christ’s example of loving unconditionally”.
Do they understand it to mean the Church must not offend anyone, including those who are sinning, even Catholics who are sinning, even Catholics at Mass listening to a homily by their parish priest? Is this what unconditional love is to them? Love them to all the way to perdition?
September 27th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
harry,
Jesus was not crucified for being overly aggressive in his demands that people obey the commandments.
September 27th, 2011 | 3:18 pm
You’re absolutely right, David. We Christians should be more appalled by an overheated analogy than we should be a parade that celebrates sinful behavior, shouldn’t we?
Gay pride parades are about more than “celebrating sinful behavior”.
They are displays of territorial domination, no different in kind or in intent than Orangemen parading aggressively through Catholic territory in Belfast.
It’s about dogs and fire hydrants. (Which is no doubt why these parades bring out so much animal behavior and its related symbolism.)
September 27th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
I agree with all those who have spoken out to defend Father Gionet, a courageous priest whose preaching is faithful to traditional RC doctrine that is barely mentioned in parishes or in Catholic catechisms any more. Regrettably, Father Gionet is not supported by his superiors, who seem to endorse the watered-down doctrine of politically correct modernists who call themselves Catholics while they want to change the basic tenets of the faith. Father Gionet’s remarks are not “overheated rhetoric”; one hopes a few of those daydreaming in the pews get his point.
“Gay Pride” parades have become something of a sacred cow these days: hardly any mayor will object to these vulgar displays in our politically correct times — they generate a lot of revenue for municipalities.
I will add the good Father’s name to my daily prayers. May he inspire other priests to remain faithful to their vocations!
September 27th, 2011 | 3:50 pm
It’s interesting how the usual skepticism about anything the media reports regarding religion is almost totally absent here.
Here’s a piece that doesn’t fit:
When did they meet with him? Before, or after, he gave the sermon in question? If they met with him after he gave the sermon, and the suspended him, why tell him to tone down his sermons, since he wouldn’t be making any more?
What were the duties he was suspended from? The story says:
As I said above, suspending a priest because he makes a sermon some people object to seems like very harsh treatment. But there seems to be more to the story than that.
September 27th, 2011 | 4:37 pm
[...] Keith Pavlischek, on the First Things [...]
September 27th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
Hello, David Nickol,
Jesus wasn’t “overly” anything. He was God and lived a perfect human life, which included using a whip to drive livestock, merchants and customers out of the temple, overturning tables and benches and scattering money all over place. So, there must be a time and a place for aggression. But simply teaching the truth about abortion and homosexuality is not aggression. Although many pretend that it is.
Hello, Peg,
That appears to be the case. The people in my life I am most grateful to are those who at one time or another loved me enough to tell me exactly what I needed to hear even though it infuriated me at the time. Such people loved me unconditionally. Those who don’t really love you will tell you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to hear. What some people really love is the thought that the “right” people think highly of them, and they speak accordingly.
September 27th, 2011 | 8:04 pm
1. The mayor of the town he preached in was openly gay.
2. He preached during the weekend of the town’s gay pride parade.
3. He was critical of homosexuality, with one article saying “We have to try to fight [homosexuality], destroy it, or do our best to invite people to change their life,” Gionet told CBC.
“And that’s something which is from my duty as a priest. I have to teach the truth to the people. I have to tell them how they should live to be with the church because if you’re gay you’re not with the church.”
The article also says the churches were divided on the talks. He preached in various ones.
4. He replaced the normal parish priest of the town, and probably gave quite the surprise to the village.
So progressive catholics come into church, get surprised, complain, and the Bishop sided with them, ironically proving the point of the priest.
September 27th, 2011 | 10:47 pm
God loves us totally but does He love us unconditionally? God wants us to be eternally with Him in the next life; but we are not all going to be eternally with God as He has revealed to us certain conditions that must first be met while we are in this life. Sadly, some willingly reject these conditions.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:16 pm
Dave,
I think it is perfectly possible to be a faithful Catholic and believe that it is not helpful for a priest to compare a gay pride parade to a terrorist attack. Many people have gay sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, or friends, and while they may disapprove of homosexuality, they don’t think of the gay people they know as the moral equivalent of terrorists.
If Catholics and conservative Christians want to totally lose the battle against homosexuality, which they are well on their way to doing, then they should continue to do exactly what they are doing—demonize gay people. Because the friends and relatives of gay people are going to see that the vast majority of them are not moral monsters, and the Christians who portrayed them as such will lose credibility.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:21 pm
Such people loved me unconditionally.
We all have obligations – as sons or daughters, parents, spouses, family members, citizens, jurors, employees; in every role we have duties that we must do, and failure to do our part would lead to consequences.
Those obligations are not changed by whether you love someone or not. You should do your duty even when it breaks your heart.
To assume that someone does not love you because they sent you to your room without supper is a child’s conception of love. Growing up, we have to learn to recognize that love and duty are different things – and a person with integrity can love you but will still do their duty, because love does not mean corruption suddenly becomes okay.
I don’t know why it has become so popular to think that if you love someone enough, you would put your “love” for them over your duty – even over your duty to them.
It is not a sign of “love” if you let your child throw toys and scream in a restaurant, or if you “forgive” your child for playing games that involve dashing out into the street “daring” oncoming traffic. As a parent, you have a set of obligations to your child, and if you fail, the consequences will be dire.
One might argue that if you genuinely love your child, you will do your duty by that child. But I don’t think the two are even related: I think it’s possible to do your duty and not love someone, and I think it’s possible to love someone a great deal and yet fail at doing your duty toward that person – (I see four possible categories – love/don’t love on one axis, do your duty by/neglect your duty on the other – for those of us who adore charts…)
:-D
Unconditional love is not about lying under oath on your brother’s behalf – in fact, doing so might get both of you in a lot more trouble than he was in already. The sister who unconditionally loves her brother will love him even though he’s been convicted of a felony, and will visit him and write him, even though his behavior embarrassed and shamed her, and if he’s innocent, she might work to gather evidence. But if he’s guilty, then maybe she ought to tell him to accept that what he has done has consequences. I could see a loving sister saying that to a brother – and I could see that being a better response to the situation than the sister who lies for her brother and gets caught doing it.
September 27th, 2011 | 11:36 pm
Ed Peters’ “p.c = pastoral care not political correctness”. This is prima facie horrendous pastoral care from the Bishop. He has failed his brother priest, demoralised his confreres, and failed his diocese by sowning moral confusion on the issue that threatens the very life of the church.
Our families imbibe nothing but the sexual morality coming out of liberal, which is a religious, world view from the anti-culture. They get precious little correction of the picture from the pulpit – and when hard teaching is actually provided the Bishop shows his true colours.
Fr Schall and Elizabeth Scalia are right. We’re headed for schism, an underground and faithful Catholic Church and a visible government controlled mockery like in China.
I hope the Vatican disciplines this Bishop who is now a cause of division and world wide scandal. What message does it send to young Catholics about the confidence our teachers have in the truth of our deposit of faith if we defer to the religious world view and corrollaries of liberalism?
September 28th, 2011 | 4:19 am
David, they can be polite till they are blue in the face, and make constant painstaking reminders that we are all sinners, we are not to hate sinners for doing so, that we should be polite and respectful…it will not matter, because of homosexuality being a sin. You are warning against something that will happen regardless of the level of rhetoric.
It doesn’t matter, it’s unconditional acceptance or the highway, and the choice is whether or not you hit the highway with some modicum of consistency, or you cave in, and maintain a cultural position aka Mormonism-something which no one can seriously believe due to inconsistencies, and follow mostly for cultural reasons.
The 9-11 thing was some pretty outrageous hyperbole. The thing though is I don’t know much about the situation on the ground and the composition of the church. Look at it this way: if a majority of the parishioners elected the mayor and support the parades, not only are they breaking doctrine, they are literally making their livelihood off of breaking it. Considering my bet is that the only reason a place which has less population than many american companies would be hosting such is due to economic benefits.
There’s a little nugget of truth in the hyperbole. He could have phrased it much, much better, but the core idea, of cheering on sin, would still raise their hackles.
September 28th, 2011 | 8:08 am
It appears the Vicar General’s comments to love unconditionally mean “let us be tolerant of evil”. So if one’s journey is headed down the path of perdition, I guess we should be silent and allow them to stay the course. Now I understand what it means to love unconditionally. Thank you for the clarification.
September 28th, 2011 | 8:57 am
Hello, Martin Snigg,
Where did you read that that is the opinion of Fr. Schall and Elizabeth Scalia? Are there URLs you can provide us with that point to articles on the web where they expressed that opinion themselves, or articles where others cited their remarks to that effect?
September 28th, 2011 | 10:37 am
Hello, David Nickol,
That remark illustrates perfectly the nature of current situation. Let me explain why.
If Christ kept His promise that the Holy Spirit would be within the Church forever, guiding its teachings such that His promise to the Apostles that “He who hears you hears me” has been fulfilled in the official teaching of the Church, then that teaching has not essentially changed for two thousand years and never will.
What has changed continually over the centuries and still does are the world’s opinions about what is moral and what is not, what is socially acceptable behavior and what is not, what is the meaning of life and what is not, and the segment of humanity that is the target of its bigotry (currently, this would be the child in the womb).
So, sometimes the world’s thinking moves to the left of the consistently straight line that is the Church’s official teaching, and sometimes it moves to the right of it, and often is grouped into adherents on both sides of it.
To the world, the same old teaching of the Church suddenly becomes reactionary, or too progressive, or revealing some kind of “phobia,” or of not fearing the consequences of its teaching when to be “realistic” it should, and often it appears to do all of that all at the same time. Yet the Church is never saying anyting essentially new. It hasn’t changed. The world has changed.
There was a time when nobody thought its teaching that homosexuality was unnatural and that homosexual fornication was sinful was outrageous. Currently that is not the case — those who are simply expressing the traditional, orthodox view are told they “demonize gay people.” That will change. The teaching of the Church won’t.
The current bigotry towards the child in the womb will eventually be dispelled. The official teaching of Church won’t be dispelled.
The Church’s Apostles are still only human. Many of them caved in to the Arian heresy after the Emporer embraced Arianism. Many today are caving in to those with worldly power when it comes to homosexuality and abortion. But they won’t change the official teaching of the Church. They can’t. It is protected by the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ. What they can do is scandalize the faithful by rebuking their own priests for adhering to and proclaiming the official, Spirit protected, teaching of the Church. That doesn’t kill the Body of Christ, which is the Church, it only terribly wounds it, yet that Body will remain animated by the Holy Spirit Who will continue to proclaim the Truth through its official teaching.
September 28th, 2011 | 10:45 am
It doesn’t matter, it’s unconditional acceptance or the highway . . .
Dave,
It wasn’t unconditional acceptance the vicar general of the diocese spoke of, it was “Christ’s example of loving unconditionally.” Unconditional love of people does not require unconditional acceptance of everything they do. Why does, “We have to respect people on their own journey,” apply to Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah, Protestants who reject the papacy (and even consider it the anti-Christ), and not gay people?
It is hard not to read the comments on First Things without coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is an evil in a class by itself. Gay people are not merely wrong, or self-deluded, or unrepentant sinners. They are dirty and evil and bent on the destruction of all that is good and true. I hope no young gay people read First Things. They will find little here to convince them that there is a place in the world for them. There are many people who comment here who I hope and pray never have a young teenage son or daughter come to them and say, “Dad (or Mom), I’m gay.” I wonder how many children of “conservative” Catholics or Evangelicals would consider their parents the people they should confide in first when they suspect or know that they are gay. And how many of them would consider their parents, priest, or minister the last people on earth they want to confide in?
September 28th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
It seems to me this bishop is misquoting CHRIST.
I don’t know where in the bible HE uses the words “love unconditionally” HE did say “forgive them, they know not what they do” and “Go and sin no more” HE never denied that a sin was committed Forgiveness, YES and that was what Fr, Gionet was calling for. It seems the purple hat was given to the wrong cleric.
September 28th, 2011 | 12:04 pm
those who are simply expressing the traditional, orthodox view are told they “demonize gay people” . . . .
harry,
You seem like a kind, charitable fellow, so I don’t understand why you seem to be unaware that there are many who do demonize gay people. I have never accused those who hold and express the Catholic moral view against homosexuality of demonizing gay people. But take this:
How much farther can you go in “demonizing” than to attribute “homosexual culture” to a demon? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexuals, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Why do you suppose that was said? Are those just wasted words? Wasn’t the Church simply acknowledging that homosexuals often are not treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and that they have been unjustly discriminated against?
Granting, for the sake of argument, that the teachings of the Catholic Church don’t change, attitudes change. Read, for example, the article Woman in the old, online Catholic Encyclopedia. Or the article Judaism. Both articles contain attitudes that no faithful Catholic today would be comfortable with.
September 28th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
Our Bishops and priests are weak! The world needs manly, straightforward teachings from the priesthood! Stand up for Fr. Gionet and the truth!
September 28th, 2011 | 1:54 pm
David:
It wasn’t unconditional acceptance the vicar general of the diocese spoke of, it was “Christ’s example of loving unconditionally.” Unconditional love of people does not require unconditional acceptance of everything they do.
This is moving the goalposts some. When I mean acceptance, it is in reference to the acceptance of homosexuality as something that is morally and spiritually equal to heterosexuality in practice. That is what must be unconditionally accepted, or the church sent packing.
Your point is something I agree with in general, but in the specific context its not applicable.
Why does, “We have to respect people on their own journey,” apply to Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah, Protestants who reject the papacy (and even consider it the anti-Christ), and not gay people?
Because atheist jews and papal-denying protestants don’t claim to be catholic, and want the official church to recognize that? I mean, the priest was preaching inside a catholic church. I’m not sure where this point fits in.
It is hard not to read the comments on First Things without coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is an evil in a class by itself…
This is goalpost shifting again. The point is that even if you are respectful, ultimately its the church doctrine that demonizes gay people by refusing them the right to accept communion if not celibate, and refusing to recognize their marriage, in their eyes.. That doctrine’s effect on the secular acceptance of gays seems to be the ultimate thing you lament, but it’s not germane to the point the priest made and got fired over.
I’ll post it to you-barring the obvious bombast, what should that priest have said in that village, while the gay mayor was in church (assuming he was) and while that weekend a pride parade was going on?
September 28th, 2011 | 2:43 pm
I’ll post it to you-barring the obvious bombast, what should that priest have said in that village, while the gay mayor was in church (assuming he was) and while that weekend a pride parade was going on?
Dave,
You want me to write a Gay Pride Day homily? :-)
I can’t do it off the top of my head, but I’ll work on it. I can tell you before I start, however, that it will not compare a gay pride parade to a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and it won’t have any quotes from Leviticus or Romans 1.
Let me say I do find it interesting how Catholic bishops, the successors to the Apostles according to Catholic doctrine, each such an authority figure that he is answerable only to the pope, get so little deference from a typical liberal who disagrees on some particular action or stand and a conservative who disagrees on some other action or stand. There are constant complaints here about how badly the media reports religion stories, but everyone here seems quite willing to take the press accounts as gospel truth and not entertain any thoughts that the bishop might actually have had sound reasons for what he was doing.
September 28th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
Hi David Nickol,
I am aware that there are those who confuse homosexual fornication, which is sinful, with a homosexual orientation, which is unnatural but is not in itself sinful anymore than a heterosexual orienation is sinful.
You addressed your remarks to one of those reading and posting on this web page, although that individual has not, nor has anyone else, posted anything that “demonized gay people.” Not that everything one posts must directly refer to what others have posted, but you didn’t clarify that you weren’t talking about the comments posted here.
You didn’t say where this came from:
Which is definitely not an example of the typical views of “Catholics and conservative Christians” whom you did say you were talking about:
And then you say:
Hmmm …
Yes, the Church demands respect for the human dignity of homosexuals and everyone else. Yes, there are those who fail to treat others as they deserve to be treated. No one here is saying that we don’t have to respect the human dignity of homosexuals.
Yes. The Church’s teaching about the dignity of homosexuals has had a positive result to some extent in terms of people adjusting their attitudes towards them.
Its teaching that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexual fornication is sinful, and its teaching about the dignity, humanity and personhood of the child in the womb, have not yet born sufficient fruit in terms of changed attitudes. I would be interested in reading a forceful argument for the correctness of these Church teachings composed by you.
September 28th, 2011 | 3:04 pm
those who are simply expressing the traditional, orthodox view are told they “demonize gay people” . . . .
harry,
You seem like a kind, charitable fellow, so I don’t understand why you seem to be unaware that there are many who do demonize gay people
Unfortunately, as long as gay rights advocates insist on conflating and blurring the boundary between real abuse vs. what they falsely characterize as “abuse”, they are spending not only their own credibility, but other peoples’ as well.
The tactic of pretending there is some either-or situation, where EITHER you believe, do, act, think, feel, and vote exactly the way you’re told to (giving gay rights advocates a blank check) OR you are the equivalent of a white-hooded cross-burning terrorist, is itself a form of abuse – first for its false accusations against innocent people, and second for contaminating the language, rendering it worthless for discussing real abuse.
See: boy who cried wolf.
September 28th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
David:
Then the bishop should say the real reasons. If I recall I got ripped for not taking the given reasons of gay people for why they wanted to get married-so why should I not take the given reasons of why the Bishop did what he did as he gave the press?
As for the homily, it’d be interesting. I’d just ask you keep the setting of the article in mind. Maybe link offsite though depending on FT and its length?
September 28th, 2011 | 4:47 pm
Through unrepentant lives of sin, we “demonize”
ourselves.
September 28th, 2011 | 5:28 pm
Then the bishop should say the real reasons.
Dave,
Do you really think it would be appropriate for the bishop to lay out a case against this priest in the press?
September 28th, 2011 | 5:40 pm
Harry said that “[The Church's] teaching that homosexuality is unnatural and that homosexual fornication is sinful, and its teaching about the dignity, humanity and personhood of the child in the womb, have not yet born sufficient fruit in terms of changed attitudes.”
This is sadly true. However, I know women who had abortions who later became pro-life. They had bought into the whole pro-choice argument and did not appreciate Church teaching on the subject, to say the least. When they came to believe that they had murdered their own children, where were they to go for absolution and healing? Not to the secular society that celebrated their “right to choose [abortion]“, and not to churches that had vague, compromised teachings on abortion. I’ve known other Catholics return “home” after years of stubbornly rejecting Church teaching on their particular besetting sins. Why should gay Catholic men and women be any different?
I also think of others in Father Gionet’s congregations—people struggling valiantly to live their Catholic faith in a society that increasingly scorns the right to life, traditional marriage and such notions as chastity, modesty, and humility. Sometimes, even their families scoff at them and fail to support them. I’ve been there and done that. I hope they find affirmation in the church, if nowhere else.
September 28th, 2011 | 6:34 pm
@ harry Fr Schall’s deduction re: schism http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/legal-persectution.html
Mrs Scalia’s If I remember comes from a reply she made to comments on an article she wrote for First Things last year.
It’s heartbreaking that so many in the church rationalise their assimilation into an incoherent liberal tradition that has no future simply because it blandishes a few trinkets now. They call this false unity pastoral care or tolerance. I suppose they will even call their eventual schismatic church good soil rather than the shallow rooted wilting during a time of persecution.
http://www.anamnesisjournal.com/issues/2-web-essays/13-the-good-the-right-and-theology
“…there is really no such thing as “liberalism,” if this means a sphere of reason or action that escapes the particularism and exclusivity of tradition. And there is also no such thing as “the secular” since traditions of rationality are distinguished by the particular way they grapple with matters of ultimate concern—all traditions are ultimately religious.
If believing theists of diverse traditions do not think, speak, and act DISTINCTIVELY as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims—bringing their intellectual, moral, and liturgical traditions wherever they go in imitation of Socrates, whom Catherine Pickstock calls a “walking liturgy,” then our “ecumenical jihad” stands no chance at converting the “liberal traditionalists” of the culture of death, who have no qualms about communicating to themselves and others exclusively in their religious parlance of tolerance and diversity, and inviting all into their liturgical practices of abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. Indeed, they see themselves as the “true believers,” the only ones truly defending “life,” with us as the heretics, obsessed only with death and control.
How can these deluded devotees have any hope of ever renouncing their enslaving tradition unless they are made aware of its enslaving character? And how can they become aware unless they have some palpable experience of an alternative?”
September 28th, 2011 | 7:12 pm
“Do you really think it would be appropriate for the bishop to lay out a case against this priest in the press?”
It would be better to make the true, if vague, statement that the priest is being disciplined for a long series of problems, than to give the false impression that the priest is being disciplined for what he said in this sermon.
Further, by anyone’s reckoning, he DID lay out a case against the priest. It’s just that you’re inclined to believe it wasn’t the real one. So I’m not sure how laying out just enough of the case to give a false impression (if indeed that’s what he did) better respects confidentiality and due ecclesiastical process, than loosely explaining that the priest’s most recent action represents the culmination of a problematic pattern.
September 28th, 2011 | 8:11 pm
David:
I think if that’s the reason he was rendered unable to do mass, yes. If I asked him why the priest was rendered so, I don’t expect a legal case, but I expect the answer he gives me to be true. It could be as simple as saying “we’ve had other disciplinary issues in the past and this was the last straw,” or “When he compared it to 9-11 that was unacceptable.” Otherwise don’t comment at all.
September 28th, 2011 | 8:14 pm
Mr Nichols, you complain “How much farther can you go in “demonizing” than to attribute “homosexual culture” to a demon? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexuals, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
You confuse the culture with the individual. While the individual is to be treated with compassion, we do a gross disservice to said individual if we do not acknowledge that the homosexual CULTURE is indeed demonic. It is that CULTURE that promotes the objectively mortal sin of sodomy. It is that CULTURE that seduces the imprudent into those acts. It is that CULTURE that blinds its partakers to the dangers to their immortal souls. And yes, it is that CULTURE that punishes those who proclaim that all can and should be free of it.
One more time (deep breaths, now!) the homosexual culture is demonic in origin. Their gay pride parades offer ample evidence of the same.
September 28th, 2011 | 8:38 pm
As for the homily, it’d be interesting. I’d just ask you keep the setting of the article in mind. Maybe link offsite though depending on FT and its length?
Dave,
The only good homily is a short homily.
September 28th, 2011 | 10:58 pm
Janet Baker,
An how would you characterize a culture in which 41% of children are born out of wedlock, 1.3 million babies a year are aborted, half of marriages end in divorce, and 88 percent of unmarried people ages 18 to 29 were having sex? Angelic?
September 28th, 2011 | 11:02 pm
Janet Baker,
I forgot to mention over 90% of Catholic married couples of childbearing age using contraceptives and approximately half of Catholic priests, at any given time, not practicing celibacy.
September 28th, 2011 | 11:45 pm
@David Nickol 11:02 p.m.
…and probably 99.9% of people lie or have lied but that doesn’t make telling a lie okay.
Oy…
September 29th, 2011 | 12:34 am
Well alright! now we’re talking. Let’s let Janet and Fr Gionet talk too. You know they’ve probably hit on something!
September 29th, 2011 | 4:59 am
Mr Nichols, you complain “How much farther can you go in “demonizing” than to attribute “homosexual culture” to a demon? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexuals, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
You confuse the culture with the individual. While the individual is to be treated with compassion, we do a gross disservice to said individual if we do not acknowledge that the homosexual CULTURE is indeed demonic. It is that CULTURE that promotes the objectively mortal sin of sodomy. It is that CULTURE that seduces the imprudent into those acts. It is that CULTURE that blinds its partakers to the dangers to their immortal souls. And yes, it is that CULTURE that punishes those who proclaim that all can and should be free of it.
One more time (deep breaths, now!) the homosexual culture is demonic in origin. Their gay pride parades offer ample evidence of the same.
Remember that the entire “gay rights agenda” is based on conflating things – confusing the right “to be what I am” with the right “to do whatever I want” – and arguing, straight-faced, as if there were no distinction between hating what someone does and hating someone.
Then comes another conflation, as once they’ve decided you must “hate” them, that must also mean imply something about your behavior – because isn’t it true that people who hate behave hatefully?
And then another conflation: behaving hatefully on a small scale and behaving hatefully on a large scale are collapsed, so that really, there’s no difference between someone holding the “wrong” opinion, and someone committing acts of terror – the two are the same!
In this way, people get to just skip right past due process – no democracy, no votes, not even speechmaking or persuasion – just give us what we want, no questions asked, or else be categorized and stigmatized with people who did genuinely awful things.
The real irony is, after they’re through using their special-privilege Magic Markers to draw devil horns on anyone who doesn’t jump when they’re told to jump, gay rights advocates can complain that the Catholic Church “demonizes” people (which involves contorting the fact that the Catholic Church actually says that all of us are fallen and liable to sin – that is, sin is demonic and we’re all vulnerable to it).
Nothing says hypocrisy quite like the “tolerance” crowd when they get going on their own a-hatin’.
September 29th, 2011 | 7:31 am
…and probably 99.9% of people lie or have lied but that doesn’t make telling a lie okay.
Oy…
Beth,
You don’t get it, do you? Let’s accept the oversimplification that there is a “homosexual culture.” Lets grant that homosexual behavior is sinful. The laundry list of sins I presented described the dominant culture. A great deal of time is spent here worrying about the homosexual (sub)culture (certainly less than 5% of the population) somehow influencing young people. But in the dominant culture, the odds are that 88% of young people will grow up to be fornicators. In the dominant culture, half of women will experience an unintended pregnancy in their lifetime, and 3 in 10 women will have an abortion. The Catholic Church demands that people with a homosexual orientation live a life of celibacy, and yet only half its own priests, voluntarily committed to celibacy, are actually practicing it.
Now, I don’t quote that to make an argument that conservative Christians and Catholics have no right at all to speak against homosexuality. But I do find it disturbing that so many of them focus on homosexuality so intensely and seem to consider it some kind of ultimate evil. Note that in the thread about 80 percent of young unmarried evangelicals (and 88 percent of the young unmarried general population) there were only 20 comments, no references to demonology, and NOBODY RESORTED TO ALL CAPS!
If homosexual behavior is sinful, then it is sinful, and lifelong celibacy would seem to be the only prescription. But from my point of view, you can’t blame gay people for pointing out that the people who are raging at them and demanding lifelong celibacy from them are not practicing it themselves.
September 29th, 2011 | 8:56 am
Hello, Peg,
I do, too. They often become powerful and effective Pro-Lifers. Several have related to me their experiences. A common theme was that they were devastated by the abortion; their self esteem went to zero; they got into drugs, alcohol and promiscuity, which often led to more abortions. Many had contemplated suicide. When it seemed they couldn’t sink any deeper into the deep, dark pit in which they found themselves — they found Jesus (actually, I think Jesus was with them all along anxiously waiting for them to notice Him).
He did for them what no one else can do. He healed the inmost depths of their beings. He forgave them and they forgave themselves. They rejoiced in the goodness and love of God. Their testimonies are so powerful! They fill one will love for Our Lord. He is good!
I often wonder how many women are out there who are still in the deep, dark pit. Pro-Lifers need to bring Jesus to them — the other side won’t — all they do is grievously wound women, take their money and send them off on their anything but “merry” way.
September 29th, 2011 | 10:31 am
Well I am.
And the two things are of a piece.
What is needed from you Mr Nickol is not what you’re shovelling.
September 29th, 2011 | 12:54 pm
David, that doesn’t matter.
A young thief is observed in the act by an old man, who tells him stealing is wrong. Yet it’s known that the old man, for all his belief, still fails at his self-control, and steals now and then. is he a hypocrite? Yes.
Does that matter for the arguments he gives against the young man stealing? No. You are using ad hominem in a roundabout way, because even if the normative catholic culture is failing hard, the doctrines still matter in the eyes of God. Gay people are not off the hook because straights screw up, and the harmful effects of their culture as such do not get justified because of it.
September 29th, 2011 | 12:56 pm
What is needed from you Mr Nickol is not what you’re shovelling.
Better to shovel than to sling, and sling in the name of Jesus, at that.
September 29th, 2011 | 2:12 pm
And I wonder what this hypocrisy charge has to do with anything, anyway. Does David know something about Fr. Gionet that the rest of us don’t?
Fr. Gionet was presumably not purporting to speak on behalf of the “culture of practicing Catholics” or “mainstream culture” or whatever. He was speaking in his priestly office, in the name of God.
Unless either God or Fr. Gionet isn’t living up to the standards he’s standing for, the ad hominem approach, even if were valid, would be misdirected.
Is “you can’t condemn me because the people you do like are naughty, too” now supposed to be taken seriously? Is it not relevant that Fr. Gionet was speaking *to the church*? And do we know that he has not also condemned the sins that David would like to see condemned?
September 29th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
Gay people are not off the hook because straights screw up, and the harmful effects of their culture as such do not get justified because of it.
Dave,
Please read what I wrote:
September 29th, 2011 | 5:04 pm
Is “you can’t condemn me because the people you do like are naughty, too” now supposed to be taken seriously?
pentamom,
If you want to discuss the issues like an adult, I am more than willing. If you want to be snippy and caricature what I say, you can do it for your own amusement and the amusement of others, but don’t expect me to respond.
September 29th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
“Those who think that sexual morality is the most important thing about Christianity have not, in my opinion, understood the message of Jesus.”
Amen, brother.
I was fortunate enough to have had great Catholic educators who believed in the mind and to have had great Catholic role models who served the poor. The focus on sex, mere devotion, and self-righteousness so plentifully found here was not part of my Catholic upbringing, and I found more faithful shepherds when these things began to dominate Catholicism.
I’ve enjoyed your posts, David. Although you sometimes get the facts wrong and although I don’t agree with all your views or even your arguments, I appreciate that you’ve stayed focused on facts and logic and have listened carefully to what others say. You’ve by and large kept your patience, too, with a minumum of snark. Thanks for all those things.
September 29th, 2011 | 7:43 pm
David:
I agree with the thing about ranking sins, and to a limited degree your other arguments. It’s probably better to use another analogy to try and restate the problem.
I am a thief coming along in the middle of the road (with bag of loot over my shoulder no less), and see someone being assaulted.
Am I wrong, because I am a thief? Yes. Should I repent and make restitution for it? Yes. Should I not turn a blind eye to my thievery, because at least I don’t beat people up in roadways? Yes. Is my vehemence against assault possibly due to guilt over my thievery? Yes.
The problem though is the guy is still getting beat up here. I can’t just turn around, repent of my thievery, start preaching to the Thieves’ Guild, hopefully get them all to repent, and then come back to save the guy. Most of what you are saying means maybe the thief should be more humble, and acknowledge his faults. but that doesn’t have anything to with whether or not beating people in the street is bad, or whether a person should take a stand to stop it.
You are using a roundabout ad hom because its kind of like the assaulter turning around, seeing the thief, and telling him to mind his own business because while he is only beating up one person, the thieves hurt many people because no one cares about the Thieves’ Guild. Hopefully this illustrates how I disagree and agree with what you said.
September 30th, 2011 | 1:05 am
Mr Nickol. An inane NYT liberal epithet won’t work in here. If the Church is some thing and not another thing and Janet and Fr Gionet can’t speak to an issue of clear and present danger to the life of the church – the legal materials of which Fr Schall and Prof. Arkes expertly describe. Then it invites the question just who/what, as a confessing Catholic, are you laboring for?
September 30th, 2011 | 6:29 am
Martin Snigg and pentamom:
I think I went a bit too far in making barbed remarks to both of you, and I would like to apologize.
October 1st, 2011 | 5:51 pm
@Snigg
“Then it invites the question just who/what, as a confessing Catholic, are you laboring for?”
@Nickol
“I am keeping my own personal opinions about homosexuality to myself and positing, for the sake of argument, that homosexual behavior is sinful.”
Has Mr. Nickol ever stated that he was in any way Catholic?
Does he believe in God? Does he attend a church? Of which denomination? What is his sexual orientation?
In my opinion, Mr Snigg’s question was the best of the thread–who exactly is Mr. Nickol laboring for?
October 2nd, 2011 | 12:45 pm
Peggy,
Who’s afraid of David Nickol?
To call him a “gadfly” is to compliment him for following the lead of Socrates in raising questions that people find threatening. Does it matter whether he remains Roman Catholic or is heterosexual? He consistently raises good questions and is sometimes thanked for his efforts by the writers on First Things who occasionally issue corrections based on his eye for facts, and he has even inspired a column responding to objections he has raised. When he does descend into making “snippy” comments, he often apologizes as he does on this thread. Meanwhile, some commenters want to drive him and his persistent questions from the site. Why? He fulfills Neuhaus’s original plea for comments by people from a variety of perspectives who want to discuss the proper role of religion in the public square, and yet some find his questions upsetting. What exactly are you afraid of?
Who does he “labor for”? Perhaps, like Socrates, he labors for the truth. And we know how Socrates was repaid for his efforts.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:59 am
Dear Michael,
(I don’t know who Peggy is, but I am replying to your comment on October 2nd, 2011 | 12:45 pm)
I saw no one asking Mr. Nickol to leave the site, so I found your claim odd at best. Perhaps Mr. Nickol is laboring for the truth, as you say, by rejecting what Christianity and Catholicism teach, and by being a homosexual activist.
If that is the case, I do not see why Mr. Nickol cannot labor for the truth while being truthful about what and who he is, therefore answering the questions that were asked. Truthfully, that is.
And I would expect the same from you. I have never met a pastor who had to conceal the name of their parish and Church as if they had something to hide.
I see no issue with Mr. Nickol expressing his wise opinions in this blog–and I note just how wise they are, as pointed out by Beth in just this example, although we had many more in this thread:
in reply to @David Nickol 11:02 p.m.
…and probably 99.9% of people lie or have lied but that doesn’t make telling a lie okay.
Oy…
or his claim that all Christians are promiscuous and adulterers:
“you can’t blame gay people for pointing out that the people who are raging at them and demanding lifelong celibacy from them are not practicing it themselves.”
I am sure this is the kind of truth expressed by Mr. Nickol that informs your “religion” and his lack of one. But unless both of you can be truthful, it would seem to me that you are laboring more for deceit than for truth.
October 3rd, 2011 | 5:57 am
Michael,
Thank you for your kind words!
October 3rd, 2011 | 6:45 am
Has Mr. Nickol ever stated that he was in any way Catholic? Does he believe in God? Does he attend a church? Of which denomination? What is his sexual orientation?
Felicity,
With all due respect, those are a lot of personal questions from someone not even using her full name. I have put forward three apparently dangerous ideas.
First, homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Second, the Catholic Church might use as its model for the pastoral care of homosexuals the words of Pope John Paul II on the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried.
Third, Bishop Valéry Vienneau, as a Catholic bishop, is owed respect and perhaps should be given the benefit of the doubt. Might he not know more about Fr. Gionet and his sermons than we do from reading a few articles in the press? It is a constant complain here how badly the press reports on religion. Why, suddenly, do people think they have been given, by a few newspaper articles, all the pertinent facts in this case?
or his claim that all Christians are promiscuous and adulterers
I did not say that. I quoted a number of statistics. For example, “80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex—slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults.” I read that in an article that was brought to our attention by Joe Carter in another post on this site.
I really find it strange (although perhaps a little flattering) when people want to discuss me, personally, rather than the topic of the thread. This is a forum for discussing the topics posted by the First Things contributors. I do often have a fair amount to say, and I do often disagree with the majority, but I am just a commenter here, and while of course anything that I say is open to criticism and refutation, I think it is inappropriate to try to make me, personally, the topic of discussion.
October 3rd, 2011 | 1:28 pm
Felicity,
Sorry about the name slip up.
“I saw no one asking Mr. Nickol to leave the site, so I found your claim odd at best.”
You’re right that no one is on this thread, but on other threads, people have asked him to leave, and the personal questions you and Snigg are asking are personal attacks. David raises questions and makes arguments. Why attack him personally or question his motives? Why not address the questions and arguments? They’re good ones, so good that at least one of them prompted an entire column in response. And yet, over the last month or two, attacks on him and his motives have increased.
“Perhaps Mr. Nickol is laboring for the truth, as you say, by rejecting what Christianity and Catholicism teach, and by being a homosexual activist”
It doesn’t matter whether he accepts or rejects Roman teaching. What matters is whether you can answer his questions or argue against the logic of his arguments.
Knowing whether he is Roman, a theist, a regular churchgoer, or what his sexual orientation is won’t help you answer his questions or attack his logic. In fact, your questions operate as dodges, distractions from answering his questions or attacking his logic.
“If that is the case, I do not see why Mr. Nickol cannot labor for the truth while being truthful about what and who he is, therefore answering the questions that were asked. Truthfully, that is”
What I resent is your last sentence. What makes you think he wouldn’t answer truthfully?
“And I would expect the same from you. I have never met a pastor who had to conceal the name of their parish and Church as if they had something to hide”
I’m not a pastor.
“I see no issue with Mr. Nickol expressing his wise opinions in this blog–and I note just how wise they are, as pointed out by Beth in just this example, although we had many more in this thread”
Now that David has explained how you and Beth have misunderstood what he was trying to say, how will you answer him?
“But unless both of you can be truthful, it would seem to me that you are laboring more for deceit than for truth”
I’ve always spoken the truth.
October 3rd, 2011 | 3:27 pm
[...] Priest not allowed to say mass after remarks on Abortion and [...]
October 3rd, 2011 | 4:06 pm
Michael,
On some other sites, for example, the Catholic web site Vox Nova,, when I raise the kinds of questions I do here, people often react by saying things like, “There’s a really good book by so-and-so on that you really should read.” I can’t tell you how many books I have bought because of recommendations like that, as well as books by people whom I disagree with but who are major spokespersons for their point of view. People elsewhere seem to be interested in giving you something solid to look into that they think will answer your questions. Of course, there are people here who attempt to civilly and patiently explain their side, but there are many who simply get angry that the questions have been raised, accuse me of having some wicked agenda, and if they answer at all, they answer off the tops of their heads rather than recommending something authoritative to read. Elsewhere it’s more about ideas. Here it tends to be about having people you disagree with and looking to see how you can contradict whatever they say. This is not to say that I don’t find myself doing that also. I think one of the main reasons that almost all of us come here is to debate. But of course the goal of Christians, it seems to me, is to spread the Gospel and make converts, and as the old saying goes, “You can attract more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar.”
October 3rd, 2011 | 11:22 pm
Thanks for the suggestion of Vox Nova, David. I’ve read around on it, and it’s quite good. As I’ve explained before and you might have seen, I started reading First Things because my sister who’s quite conservative recommended it as a smart place. While she and I have enjoyed discussing the articles, the online discussion just gets tiresome and seems to be getting worse. Carter has reported that the board has considered pulling the comments, and I sometimes think that a lot of posters here think the board is embarrassed by the liberal postings. I’m inclined to think that they’re embarrassed by the low level of conservative conversation! Frequently, I don’t feel like I’m participating in a Christian conversation. There’s too much suspicion and bitterness. I’m not quite sure what’s behind it.
I do like a debate that narrows by showing what’s at stake or where the definitional ambiguities are, but I don’t find that happening very often. You and I disagree on quite a bit it seems, but you’re informed and not boring. These are virtues!
October 4th, 2011 | 10:49 am
Dear Mr. Nickol,
I think you are confused about the questions that were put to you. I think it is plain to see that motive is related to objective. As you have read, some people are curious about your motives and your objectives here. I am particularly curious about the level of truthfulness you are engaging in concerning your participation here.
As far as I could see, several questions you and others raised were debated in this thread, so asking about what you are trying to achieve here, and for what purpose, and what motivates you, is in no way a detraction from discussing the issues on FT. Nor does it imply an attack, these are questions seeking the truth. And given that motives and objectives are not only personal, but most often also religious, ideological and political, to say that such questions are merely in the personal sphere is also misleading.
In reference to Michael’s question, “Does it matter whether he remains Roman Catholic or is heterosexual? “–I wasn’t aware that Mr. Nickol had ever said he was Catholic in any way– did he? It matters given the extent that the sexual and the religious are at the same time personal and political and they are powerful drivers of ideological agendas.
So unless Mr. Nickol can be transparent and truthful, it would seem to me that he is laboring more for deceit than for truth. It also shows how little respect he has for the participants of these blog discussions.
While Mr. Nickol apparently believes that he has something to gain by running away from answering these questions and from being truthful about himself, his motives, and his objectives, his evasive and slippery behavior answers these questions in an oblique, but loud way.Why is Mr. Nickol so afraid of bringing them out into the open?
“And yet, over the last month or two, attacks on him and his motives have increased. ”
This is quite a normal consequence when people notice that someone refuses to be truthful and transparent about their motives and objectives. Perhaps several people are not amused by deceit, evasiveness, or by being misled.
While Michael adamantly believes I am “afraid” of Mr. Nickol’s questions, I, in turn, wonder why Mr. Nickol is so afraid of being truthful.
“What makes you think he wouldn’t answer truthfully? ”
As you can see by his last posts, that is one thing he tried to run away from as much as he could.
Mr. Nickol also expressed what a deprecating view he has of the exchanges here:
“Frequently, I don’t feel like I’m participating in a Christian conversation. There’s too much suspicion and bitterness. I’m not quite sure what’s behind it.
I do like a debate that narrows by showing what’s at stake or where the definitional ambiguities are, but I don’t find that happening very often. ”
And yet, he insists on having what he feels are these “dismal” exchanges here, one after the other, while he could be having what he deems are high level exchanges elsewhere. A very curious choice indeed for someone who insists on evasiveness and deceit about his motives for participating in these discussions.
October 4th, 2011 | 1:14 pm
Felicity,
“In reference to Michael’s question, “Does it matter whether he remains Roman Catholic or is heterosexual? “–I wasn’t aware that Mr. Nickol had ever said he was Catholic in any way– did he? It matters given the extent that the sexual and the religious are at the same time personal and political and they are powerful drivers of ideological agendas”
David has described his Roman education in several threads. Since you say that the sexual and the religious are powerful drivers of ideological agendas, perhaps you would like to answer some questions. Are you Roman Catholic? If so, do you attend mass weekly and observe Holy Days of Obligation? Do you abide by all Church teachings or select from the menu? Do you support the changes instituted by Vatican 2? Are you heterosexual? If so, have you had have any homosexual experiences? Have you ever engaged in any gravely sinful sexual practices, including, but not limited to, adultery, premarital sex, contraception, tubal ligation, oral sex, or masturbation? If so, have you repented of these sins? Have you ever divorced and remarried? Do you believe that the Church in the US has been too quick to grant so many annulments?
Once you answer these questions, please explain fully what your ideological agenda is.
“So unless Mr. Nickol can be transparent and truthful, it would seem to me that he is laboring more for deceit than for truth.”
To refuse to answer a question is not the same as being deceitful. Exactly where do you see him in this thread being deceitful or misleading? When you claimed this earlier, he explained what he meant, but you haven’t responded to his explanation. Should I assume that you accept it or that you are evading the fact that he has shown himself not to be the bigoted person you had hoped he was? Should I assume that you are pursuing some ideological agenda?
“This is quite a normal consequence when people notice that someone refuses to be truthful and transparent about their motives and objectives.”
Name three other common possible reasons people might be responding to him in this way. Or do you think that there’s only one possible answer?
“Mr. Nickol also expressed what a deprecating view he has of the exchanges here”
You quote me, not David.
“A very curious choice indeed for someone who insists on evasiveness and deceit about his motives for participating in these discussions”
There’s a difference between evasiveness and deceit. You can accuse him of being evasive for not answering a question, but he has provided a solid reason why he wouldn’t want to answer those questions. You have pointed to two passages that you claim are deceitful, he’s explained what he meant, but now you are the one who is being evasive by not responding. Perhaps you need to explain what ideological agenda is preventing you from being truthful.
October 5th, 2011 | 6:42 am
I wrote, “So unless Mr. Nickol can be transparent and truthful, it would seem to me that he is laboring more for deceit than for truth.”
You replied, “To refuse to answer a question is not the same as being deceitful.”
It certainly is not being truthful. And we can only know the full extent of the deceit if we know the truth about his motives and objectives.
If you and Mr. Nickol claim to be the owners of the truth on homosexuality and religion, I find it curious how lacking in truthfulness you and Mr. Nickol are here about his motives and objectives.
It looks like I have asked a dangerous question.
October 5th, 2011 | 2:51 pm
Felicity,
“I find it curious how lacking in truthfulness you and Mr. Nickol are here about his motives and objectives”
I can hardly be lacking in truthfulness about David’s motives and objectives since I’m not him.
In the meantime, I’ve asked you a number of questions and you have not answered them. I’ve asked you whether you accept his reply about the items you believed he was being directly deceitful about, and you have not answered.
I can only conclude that I have asked dangerous questions and that you are not being fully truthful.
October 6th, 2011 | 6:13 pm
Michael,
“I can hardly be lacking in truthfulness about David’s motives and objectives since I’m not him. ”
All I see is you insisting that Mr. Nickol should not be truthful about what he is, nor about his motives or objectives. If there is one thing that you are not is working for the truth here.
Unless you knew his motives and knew they were good, why should you be bothered if anyone else concludes from Mr. Nickol’s comments that they are not?
“There’s a difference between evasiveness and deceit.”
Let us suppose a man is out with his lover. He comes home and his wife asks him where he was. He tells her he is too tired to talk, saying he wants to go to sleep so that he does not have to tell her the truth.
Only someone like you would think the man is not engaging in deceit.
“Should I assume that you accept it or that you are evading the fact that he has shown himself not to be the bigoted person you had hoped he was?”
Michael, I don’t think you have grasped what the issue is. I was pointing out how lacking in truth Mr Nickol is about who he is, his motives and his objectives here. Not about two or three lines he may have written in this thread or elsewhere.
I don’t know why you assume that anyone should have been expecting or hoping for Mr. Nickol to be bigoted or even what you mean by this word.
Would you be terribly disappointed to find out that people are not afraid of Mr Nickol’s questions, but just find them hypocritical and misleading? In this respect, such questions can be often counter-productive, functioning as red herrings, driving what could have been a better quality exchange into a sequence of false claims by Mr Nickol, quite often baiting people with provocations, which then requires others to simply correct what was wrongly claimed in the first place, over and over again. I can understand why some people have grown tired of the process.
I have not seen any indication of anyone expressing fear concerning Mr Nickol’s thoughts or comments–appropriate and reasoned reprobation, yes, derision at his distorted values, criticism of his harmful views, yes.
You and I differ on our appraisals of Mr. Nickol’s contributions to this forum. While you find his questions good, I have mostly another opinion. But sometimes they prompt very good replies, such as in this thread. It is no wonder some people have humorously speculated that he was someone being paid by FT to generate more action in the comment section by craftily provoking others with his homosexual agenda questions.
October 7th, 2011 | 10:17 am
Felicity,
“All I see is you insisting that Mr. Nickol should not be truthful about what he is, nor about his motives or objectives.”
I think David should be truthful in whatever answer he gives. I don’t see why he needs to answer the personal questions you have posed. After all, you haven’t answered the personal questions I’ve posed.
More seriously, you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked about the charge of deceit you’ve leveled against him. Your unwillingness to answer that question suggests that you are evasive about facts and truth.
“Unless you knew his motives and knew they were good, why should you be bothered if anyone else concludes from Mr. Nickol’s comments that they are not?”
I am bothered because I believe in fairness and good manners. I don’t always agree with David’s opinions and have fought with him over several issues, but he’s consistent, he answers serious questions, he acknowledges when he’s wrong and when he’s lost his temper, and I’ve never seen him behave duplicitously. When I started following this site a little over a year ago, there were a couple of liberal trolls who posted a lot, and they were merely bombthrowers, trying to get people’s goat. Happily, those guys haven’t shown up in awhile, and I had some small part to play in showing one of them how ridiculous his behavior was. I think David has made these threads more thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I think a lot of people here are having trouble distinguishing between a troll and someone who’s interesting.
“Let us suppose a man is out with his lover. He comes home and his wife asks him where he was. He tells her he is too tired to talk, saying he wants to go to sleep so that he does not have to tell her the truth”
You’re assuming that the man has had sex with his lover. The lover in fact was a former girlfriend who is suicidal. He’s been talking her off a bridge all night, and his wife is the insecure, jealous type who is prone to violent rages and has never gotten over the fact that he once loved someone else. He will answer her questions in the morning after he’s slept, recovered his strength, and is prepared for all of those narcissistic questions she’ll ask once he’s only started to explain where he was last night.
My point is that you are assuming only one possible motive for David’s silence. A more generous person would imagine multiple possibilities.
“Would you be terribly disappointed to find out that people are not afraid of Mr Nickol’s questions, but just find them hypocritical and misleading?”
You found one of his answers misleading, he answered your question, and you never responded. You haven’t yet made a case that he has been hypocritical or misleading. You might try reading Pentamom’s responses to David’s posts. I think she often does a good job of pointing out the flaws in David’s reasoning. Other times, I think David does a better job of pointing out the flaws in hers.
“It is no wonder some people have humorously speculated that he was someone being paid by FT to generate more action in the comment section by craftily provoking others with his homosexual agenda questions”
Harry once seriously claimed that I was paid by Planned Parenthood because I don’t buy the nonsense being peddled about Margaret Sanger or Gunnar Myrdal. And if you believe in such a thing as “the homosexual agenda,” then I’d to hear you describe at least five different debates currently being held among homosexuals who believe that there is a history of discrimination against homosexuals. If you can’t do that, perhaps you could explain why there is no such thing as “the Christian agenda” because there are at least five different debates being held among Christians about the proper beliefs and public roles are for Christians.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:33 pm
Hello, Michael and Felicity,
Michael wrote:
Here is what I actually said:
The entire discussion can be seen here:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/31/arizona-and-the-war-on-baby-girls/
Does that sound like I was seriously accusing Michael of being paid by Planned Parenthood?
Here is my concluding post on that web page:
That seems friendly enough to me. What brought on your accusation that I “seriously claimed” that you were being paid by Planned Parenthood, Michael?
October 8th, 2011 | 10:02 am
Good day to all,
Michael: “You’re assuming that the man has had sex with his lover.”
I think it’s clear that Felicity was using the most logical definition of the word “lover” in a marital context: a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair.
The man is explicitly engaging in deceit with his wife by not answering her questions and telling her about his lover.
Even in your distorted version of Felicity’s example:
He will answer her questions in the morning after he’s slept,
that’s exactly what you are arguing against here in respect to David Nickol.
You are insisting he should never answer any questions and continue to engage in deceit.
Then you claim he is laboring for the truth, a mighty contradiction in my opinion.
I think David should be truthful in whatever answer he gives.
Just like a man who cheats on his wife can insist on never answering any questions that bring out the truth about what he is doing. It’s exactly the picking and choosing to cover up the truth that constitutes the basis of his deceit.
In that way, he is not only dishonest about his marriage, engaging in the adultery itself, he is also dishonest about being dishonest. To claim that he did not lie because he used silence as a way to refuse to tell the truth is a sham. And it constitutes clear deceit.
I also believe in fairness, but deceit is not part of fairness. Like Felicity, I also appreciate transparency and I do not see that coming from Mr. Nickol regarding his participation on this forum.
October 8th, 2011 | 10:25 am
Michael,
Are you seriously suggesting that asking someone what is their religion equals asking them how often they masturbate (or have masturbated)?
I see no personal intrusiveness in Felicity’s questions to Mr. Nickol (sexual orientation, religion, motives and objectives).
I also concur that if you (and Mr. Nickol) had a worthwhile ideological agenda, you wouldn’t spend so much energy dissimulating it and covering it up with evasive responses.
October 8th, 2011 | 11:01 am
Harry asked, “Does that sound like I was seriously accusing Michael of being paid by Planned Parenthood?”
Isn’t it a fact that PP pays people to do advocacy using all kinds of media? Isn’t it logical to think that among their advocacy strategies they would pay people to write in certain forums?
It is quite understandable that PP would pay people to write on forums, but maybe they don’t. It certainly is not illegal to pay people to do advocacy for an organization online or offline, especially one whose politics are profoundly controversial. PP depends on convincing people that their version of reality is correct and they certainly know the power of the Internet as social media.
Nevertheless, it is a complete stretch to say that Harry was affirming that Michael was a PP paid staff. He wasn’t, but the conjecture is not at all invalid. Neither for Michael, nor for other resolute PP advocates. Nor is there a problem in putting forth the conjecture.
It would not be a surprise if Michael were being paid to do this. At the same time, it wouldn’t be a surprise to find out that Michael spends a great deal of energy defending PP because of his beliefs in his ideological agenda, and therefore is “working” without any financial gain.
I assume that Michael can’t be truthful about his motives and objectives for doing this, given his posts insisting that Mr. Nickol should not be truthful or transparent, but Michael certainly is invested in defending PP.
So, no, it’s clear that Harry wasn’t seriously accusing Michael of being a paid staff writer. I also don’t see any problem in conjecturing that PP engages people to do this, on a paid or volunteer basis.
October 9th, 2011 | 3:53 pm
Harry,
“What brought on your accusation that I “seriously claimed” that you were being paid by Planned Parenthood, Michael?”
You’ve quoted part of what you said but not its context. After responding to me, you wrote:
“Hello, everyone else reading this,
Just get a copy of Maafa 21 and watch it. I believe it can be watched for free online at some web sites — Google it up. Maafa 21 makes it painfully clear that Planned Parenthood was the illegitimate child of an affair between racism and eugenics. There are those who have seen Maafa 21 who would have you believe that in spite of evidence to the contrary, PP is now an upstanding “citizen” with the best of intentions, untainted by its dark roots. Well, like a tree, PP is stuck with its roots and can’t live apart from their influence. The only reasonable thing to do with the PP “tree” is to chop it down. And speaking of conspiracy theories, as it is PP can afford to pay people to create the illusion, through a web-presence on discussion sites, that in spite of the damning evidence to the contrary the PP “tree” is somehow living without being influenced by its dark, sick roots. They would have you believe there is no need to be concerned with contemporary PP’s true intentions. There is, of course, no proof there is an artificially created web-presence of such people, but, if you were taking the heat PP is currently taking, and, like them, were fabulously wealthy in terms of cash and terribly impoverished in terms of morality, what would you do? Am I the only one to have such a thought as I read some of the “PP is not really all that bad” comments on discussion boards”
You’re right that you didn’t directly accuse me of being a paid agent of Planned Parenthood. It would be more accurate to say that, as I do later on that thread, that you insinuate that I am. You stepped out of the conversation with me to address other readers and ask them to consider people who make favorable comments toward Planned Parenthood are possibly paid agents. Since only David and I were making favorable comments, you implied that we personally were possibly paid agents.
In doing so, you followed a common pattern in your writing. Whenever someone presents you with evidence that contradicts or complicates your position, you evade discussing the evidence and either raise fresh questions or attack the author. I continue to be shocked that you would stoop to this accusation.
Here was my last contribution to that discussion:
“As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t support either Planned Parenthood or abortion; I just want clarity in the record. The more I dig into Sanger the more I find that people in the pro-life movement have misrepresented her in order to make a bad thing look even worse. Nothing justifies the kind of distortion of the truth that I’m seeing. Abortion is evil, and Planned Parenthood has done much evil in the name of supporting women’s choice, but we are not therefore justified in distorting the record either of Planned Parenthood itself or of its founder.
I have two problems with you. First is that you seem to confuse explaining the truth about Sanger with defending her actions or Planned Parenthood. I am explaining not defending, but you continue to claim or insinuate that I am doing both.
Second is that you seem incapable of reading the historical record with any nuance. You are convinced that Sanger is guilty of everything the conspiracy theorists claim she is. I don’t have so much of a problem with that. People are convinced by the arguments that convince them. What I do have a problem with is that you can’t acknowledge any ambiguity in the record. You believe that an honest person could only interpret her words in one particular way rather than admitting that an honest observer could interpret her words in several plausible ways.
Good historians differ from one another not because some are honest and some are not but because they bring different knowledge and contexts to bear in their interpretations. I think the evidence for my understanding of Sanger is better and fuller than yours. I even think that David’s evidence is better than yours even though I agree with your politics than I don’t his. But you seem to think that you bring truth to the discussion and that I bring only deception or willful ignorance”
October 9th, 2011 | 4:01 pm
Gregory,
“I think it’s clear that Felicity was using the most logical definition of the word “lover” in a marital context: a person with whom one conducts an extramarital sexual affair”
Surely you’re right that this is what Felicity meant by saying “lover,” but my point is this. Felicity proposes a scenario in which the man is guilty, and thus his refusal to answer his wife’s questions is evasive and deceitful.
I proposed a counter scenario in which the husband was innocent, and thus his refusal to answer had other motivations besides deceit.
Felicity seems to think that the only reason someone would not answer a question is because he is guilty of something. I was merely making the point that there are sometimes legitimate reasons not to answer someone’s questions. In David’s case, Felicity’s questions having nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Instead of attacking David’s logic, she went on a fishing expedition for some other line of attack.
“You are insisting he should never answer any questions and continue to engage in deceit”
I did not say that. I said his refusal to answer irrelevant personal questions was not evidence of deceit. Remember that Felicity has only offered one example of David’s supposed deceit. David explained that she and Beth had misunderstood what he was trying to say. Felicity has never responded to David’s explanation, preferring instead to go on a personal attack. My continued frustration with these threads is that too many people would rather get locked into personal attacks rather than discussing the evidence. Why not discuss the evidence?
October 9th, 2011 | 4:27 pm
Amanda,
“Are you seriously suggesting that asking someone what is their religion equals asking them how often they masturbate (or have masturbated)?”
No, I wasn’t being serious. I was being farcical. Frequently, I hear Roman Catholics argue that someone isn’t truly Roman because they don’t attend mass weekly or are cafeteria Catholics, and I was trying to illustrate the dangers of going down the road of establishing your ideological cred before being allowed to weigh in on a subject.
“I see no personal intrusiveness in Felicity’s questions to Mr. Nickol (sexual orientation, religion, motives and objectives)”
The problem with her questions is that they are irrelevant to the point of the thread and to the point of David’s questions. David raised a very good question in his 2:55 p.m. post on September 29. This is the post that triggered Felicity’s questions. David said, “I am not trying to argue people out of their moral beliefs that homosexual behavior is sinful” and “I don’t believe I have ever done otherwise on First Things.” As far my recollection goes, he is quite correct. He’s never made a case for homosexuality. Instead he’s asked questions about the consistency with which Romans have made a case against it. If adultery and masturbation are as bad as homosexuality, then why don’t we treat them all the same.
I think there’s a good case to be made against David’s questions here, but for some reason, Felicity and the rest have decided not to make that case. They’d rather get personal.
I think his motives are quite clear from his questions. He thinks that Romans have lost credibility on the issue of sexual morality because they apply their own rules inconsistently and haven’t admitted how much their own understanding of sexuality has changed.
You can either argue against that point of view, or you can ask whether he’s gay. I can tell you which route I think is more intelligent.
October 9th, 2011 | 4:38 pm
Amanda,
“Neither for Michael, nor for other resolute PP advocates. Nor is there a problem in putting forth the conjecture”
I’m hardly an advocate for Planned Parenthood. If you read my posts, you’ll see I’m quite critical of Planned Parenthood. I’m pro-life, after all, which is one of the positions I’ve argued with David about.
Do you really think there’s no problem conjecturing that I’m a paid agent? How would you feel if someone accused you of being paid to make the comments you believe? And why make the conjecture when you can dismantle the argument? It makes no sense to me.
“it wouldn’t be a surprise to find out that Michael spends a great deal of energy defending PP because of his beliefs in his ideological agenda”
I believe in the truth. I believe that the pro-life movement hurts itself when it makes wild claims about its opposition, claims based on distortions of the historical record. Just recently, Reno had a column in First Things in which he complained about the distortions he found in a Republican fundraising letter. No one accused Reno of being a Democrat much less a paid agent of the Democratic Party. Ask for the truth about Planned Parenthood, however, and the truth becomes a victim.
“I assume that Michael can’t be truthful about his motives and objectives for doing this, given his posts insisting that Mr. Nickol should not be truthful or transparent, but Michael certainly is invested in defending PP”
I’ve not evaded anything. No one has asked me about my motives. You seem to have trouble distinguishing me from David, and I’m offended by your assumption. What should I assume about you?
October 9th, 2011 | 6:45 pm
Hi, Michael,
Thanks.
You quoted me as saying:
Thanks again. That just can’t be said too often.
And as far as you providing everyone with more of the text of my statements as though, “This is the part Harry didn’t want to tell you,” well, I had already provided a link to the entire discussion we had. I hope a lot of people take the time to read through it all.
October 10th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
Harry,
You’re welcome, but you’re still guilty of an unfair insinuation.
The part you didn’t want people to know is that you are guilty of an insinuation that coyness of your evasion can’t erase. The fact is that I exposed every point of yours as a distortion of the truth and, since you couldn’t argue from the facts, you resorted to slander. It’s a rogue’s trick.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact