Pam Spaulding

Washington Times columnist: Pope Benedict hasn't a hateful homophobic bone in his body

Filed By Pam Spaulding | December 29, 2008 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality
Tags: Benedict XVI, Catholic church, Jeffrey Kuhner, pope, Washington Times

Frequent visitors to my pad know that we monitor including the latest one. This time it involved a speech to senior Vatican staff where the homo-obsessed Pope said that saving humanity from gays and transfolk was as critical as protecting the environment. I blogged about it and said:

The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike.

This story was also covered heavily by the MSM, including the London Times ("Pope accused of stoking homophobia after he equates homosexuality to climate change"), and it Pope Benedict's incessant bigot eruptions, actually cited that quote of mine. It was also picked up by Faux News (also apparently on-air by Brit Hume).

I wonder what was particularly interesting about that quote to them, considering all of the colorful complaints I've lodged re: the Pope's outlandish, almost weekly statements assailing the LGBT community for allegedly destroying society and/or the family, but whatever.

Anyway, Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner has written an incredible Papal defense in response to the outcry from the LGBT community and the coverage by the MSM. I can't wait to read your responses to this...

The homosexual lifestyle is inherently dangerous and destructive. It is not just that most gays and lesbians are casually promiscuous, and that ritualized sodomy is profoundly unhealthy. But homosexuality is incapable of natural reproduction; its lifestyle is one that is barren and childless - and without children, there can be no future and ultimately, no hope.

The debate about same-sex marriage has nothing to do with "gay rights." Homosexuals are free to do anything they like in the privacy of their bedrooms. The relentless push for gay marriage is not about tolerance, but the legitimization of homosexual behavior - to place it beyond the boundaries of moral disapproval and social ostracism. To accomplish this, the liberal elite seek to marginalize the great traditional religions, especially Christendom's most powerful defender, the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict understands this, which is why he continues to courageously speak out in defense of human dignity and the sanctity of the family. He is neither politically on the right or the left. He has opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, championed the rights of the unborn and the poor, criticized the inequalities of "jungle capitalism," and railed against Islamist terror and the degradation of the environment. Above all, however, he has carried the banner of peace and civilized, rational dialogue. He repeatedly - and unequivocally - has said the Christian injunction is to love the sinner but hate the sin.

Now the pope's enemies deliberately twist his words to demonize him. There is not a hateful bone in his body. To caricature him as a homophobe, never mind as calling for a jihad against gays and lesbians, is not only dishonest but pathetic. They cannot defeat him intellectually or morally and so must resort to ad hominem attacks.

Their efforts will fail. Pope Benedict is the spiritual titan of the West. He is right. His critics are wrong. And, in the end, he will be vindicated.

And that's just a taste of the piece.


Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Aside from his first paragraph, which is homophobic garbage, and the last, which is an overbroad defense of his popeness not supported by Benedict's rhetoric, Kuhner is pretty accurate. The push for gay marriage is, among other things, a push for legitimization of homosexual behavior. And while I can't speak for the "liberal elite," whatever that is, I for one am happy to seek the marginalization of the great traditional religions, as well as the not-so-great non-traditional religions or anything that smacks of superstitious nonsense. The fact that millions of people profess to believe some prophet rose from the dead or some other prophet ascended to heaven on a white-winged horse doesn't make these stories true. People should be free to believe whatever they want to believe, but those beliefs should not impinge upon the freedom of others. That necessarily means that many people's religions are marginalized, in that the inherent ugliness (bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, etc.) of those religions should not form the basis of our laws or our social order.

Your post would have been more informative and interesting if you had actually explained what, specifically, you object to about Kuhner's piece or where you think he's wrong, instead of tossing off some vague outrage. But that would require that you actually do some work.

Angela Brightfeather | December 29, 2008 6:11 PM

The solution to this whole matter is to meet in the street with pistols loaded and have a shoot out.


There is a lot I could say about the Catholic Church, and "His Holiness", but most of it would sound like a Richard Prior, Billy Crystal, or the ultimate, George Carlin offerings. Come to think of it, I wonder if the Pope thinks that Richard and George are in heaven? I know that I do.


But seriously folks, what do you really expect from the "Papal Sea" anyway? Any Pope you want to point to in the past, the present or the future, is going to be homophobic. Unlike GLBT people who are borne that way, all Popes have to go to school for many years and get many degrees to become as homophobic as they are and I don't know anyone who is quite as open and as good at it as they are. I'm not sure if they are "enlightened" or "posessed".

In any event, we need a GLBT hero to step forward and confront the Pope in an open and televised debate about what the Pope says is a "lifestyle" or a "choice". I mean, lets really go for it.

The stakes would be set very high. If our hero wins, the Pope has to change the bible like they have done in the past by papal decree, just like when they did away with Limbo or Purgatory, or fish on Fridays. But in this case, he would have to make it perfectly OK and totally acceptable to be GLBT and make it a mortal sin for anyone to kill us for that reason, plus allow us to be married by the church. But, if the Pope wins the debate, we can all promise to become heterosexual in the future. I think that those are high enough stakes to draw him out in the open and from behind those high walls of protection in the Vatican that are guarded by the Swiss Army, who we all know makes fantastic knives.

Who can we get for our side?

Joe Solomonese....Joe is an excellent speaker who appears at TG Conventions and espouses all of our issues. He even has his own radio show where a debate between he and the Pope can be broadcast.

Tammy Balwin.....Great choice, but unfortunately Tammy is a woman and you know what that means in the Catholic church. The Pope would win that one because he would just declare her loser and not relevant because she is a woman and women simply don't deserve to be able to make choices in their lives. Therefore, his declaring a victory, is all he has to do to win.

Barney Frank......Another great choice. Barney can talk his ear of and beat him down with good old jokes and his vast experience. But would he be able to represent all GLBT people, or would he try to compromise with the Pope and strike a deal? Something along the lines of "total freedom and rights for all GLBT people, except TG people who need to go to the bathroom or use public showers."

Barak Obama.....Now this has some real possibilities doesn't it? All he has to do is say to the Pope, "I'm sorry your Holiness, but we don't believe in homophobia in America." Hey, done deal. Wrap it up folks. Obama Wins the debate and the Pope goes back to Rome, whipped and beaten like he challenged Obama to a full court basketball game.

Once again, as before, I vote that President Obama meet the Pope in the street and represent us, you an me, just like he is supposed to do and stand up for our being Americans, human beings and equal to everyone else.

The big question is, who is going to ask him to represent us against the Papal attack machine and will he do it?

I can name a dozen trans people who could whoop the Pope's lilly-white ass. Jamison Green could do the job even if he hadn't slept in 5 days. Shannon Minter, Diego Sanchez, Donna Rose, etc, etc, etc.

Interesting to see Southern U.S. Protestant hatred of Catholicism is still going strong.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 29, 2008 8:53 PM

When someone attempting to defend a bigot against charges of bigotry uses just more of the same bigotry to do so ... well, just say it doesn't raise much hope for meaningful or respectful dialog.

Starting with the nonsense terminology of "the homosexual lifestyle" (since when do the millions of gay people in the U.S., much less worldwide, agree on anything, much less have adopted a cohesive manner of living alike enough to constitute a "lifestyle") and slogging thru the slung mud all the way to the it-would-be-silly-if-it-were-not-perpetually-and-crazy-makingly-responsible-for-so-much-suicide-and-other-self-destruction-while-letting-so-many-vile-bigots-let-themselves-off-that-hook "love the sinner, hate the sin" illogic of hating the unseverable essence of a person yet believing that that isn't hating the person, I wanted to laugh, thinking that here's yet another one who somehow thinks his thoughts on the subject unique enough to speak or write when they are just so much jumbled het supremacy without cause and deserving of naught more than a loud taunt of "BORING!"

Really, do these people really think that every queer in the west has not heard this horsepucky before -- a thousand thousand and more times before?

And what's with the non-repro screed? Does the Rat-Pope question his god's plan about other things so vehemently? Really, how does he know that we are not some plot of a Green-Party god to fight over-population? And does he really think that, if it suddenly became very okay in his eyes to be gay that all his het flock would have a queer V-8 eternity sans gayby boom and that reproductive tech would suddenly explode into nothingness -- yeah, right!

Ritualized sodomy? I didn't know any of that was going on! Most of my sodomy is so disorganized!

I love how lesbianism, though, is bad because of sodomy...

The Lesbians always get left out. Sodomy, Sodomy, Sodomy--it's always about Sodomy. These people are such misogynists.

Well, we Gomorrhians demand equal condemnation!

On the debate note, that fanciful scenario would best be handled on behalf of us all by Rosie O'Donnell. She could certainly "Trump" whatever Dr Ratzinger could bring up......

God, I'd love to have a shot at illegitimizing the Rat-zinger. My wife's Catholic, and she can go on for hours about the various misdeeds of Popes in general and this National Socialist Pope in particular. Cardinal on this list is the official ignorance of pedophilia among priests, but it goes way further into history than that. Fortunately, the Rat-zinger is an octogenarian and will croak in the not terribly distant future.

Infallible? Hardly.

Uh, Helms, I'd like a shot at Rat-zinger, too. But the one you want to sic' on 'im is Dawn Wilson. She knows the Bible better than Rat-zinger does.

Oh, yes! She could do us all proud. It's a dream, however.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | December 30, 2008 3:07 AM

Institutionally the RC church has not come to grips with Martin Luther as yet. They look backward to steer forward and yearn, always yearn, for their days of long lost power.

Actually, now that I think of it, the thing to do to the Rat-zinger is simple: charge the RC church (and all others) property tax. They'd never be able to afford tax on all those cathedrals.

Mean-spirited? Damn right, and just as mean-spirited as the RAT-zinger.

The gays just have so much fucking to do that there's no way they can adequately assess what's homophobic and what isn't. Fortunately, this Kuhner guy stepped up to the plate on their behalf and the Washington Times boldly stood behind their man. Whew!


...And now back to your regularly scheduled orgy.

I had the interesting opportunity to discuss the Pope's words with a Catholic priest over Christmas dinner.

I asked him to explain the basis for the Pope's statements. He couldn't. In fact, he was totally unware of them...the US bishops aren't publicizing it.

I asked him to explain Mark 9:47 as it refers to transfolk and the intersexed. He couldn't.

I explained that, by dehumanizing us, by equating us to human pollution, the supposed infallible moral authority on Earth was giving an excuse to the haters to perpetrate violence...violence like that visited upon the intersexed woman who is presently crashing on my couch, having been driven from her home by hate. He agreed the wording was irresponsible.

There is apparently at least one US priest who has done a lot of work on gender theory. The priest I shared my meal with promised to educate himself and come back to me for further debate.

I educated one that night. I will do what I can to multiply that through the Church.

Best,

J D "Ox" Freeman

President

Alabama Gender Alliance

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | December 31, 2008 3:38 PM

Hat's off to ya! -- Me, I'd rather eradicate and fumigate rather than educate that bunch.

Before I start, I'd just like to say I have nothing against religion or Catholicism. I'm religious, too, and have had mostly good experiences with Christianity and Catholics. I just have an issue with how Pope Benedict is handling the "gay issue."

First off, this article twists words on its own--- the word 'jihad' is misused, since jihad has many different meanings, but is generally used in a context of DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. "Islamist terror" is a joke as well, given that Christian Europe was exhilarated when the Mongols brutally destroyed the ancient Islamic empire during the pre-1500s (women, children, and civilians were brutally murdered, and the Black Plague was spread in some area via chemical warfare.) Islam and Christianity aren't really at odds religiously, but both have been abused by governments trying to manipulate people through religious means. Religion is a good way to make "us vs them" binaries, and the Church wasn't much different during the Crusades than today's so-called "Islamic" terrorist leaders. That's why religion should stay out of government--- government leaders tend to use it to justify their own goals (which are often worse than any so-called "threat" to marriage.)

As for the sanctity of the family, the heterosexual divorce rate in America is over 50% (and the only relation this statistic has to homosexuality is a society which forced homosexuals to "cure" themselves by marring heterosexuals.) This writer has real chutzpah to say that Benedict is trying to protect the "sanctity of the family" by stopping gays from having their own. The real threat to marriage is homosexuals being excluded from it, and forced to unnaturally marry straights just to have "normal," accepted families.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good motto, considering that, according to Leviticus, almost any one of us can be sinners. Christianity and Judaism both work off the Bible, a book which at its heart carries a message of peace, acceptance, order and love. Here's hoping Pope Benedict stops speaking out against homosexuality, and gives messages of love instead of hate. We'd all be better off.


- Roxy (Jewish liberal)