Video: Catholic League prez, gay editor clash over Folsom Street Fair
posted at 2:15 pm on October 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Miller Beer’s apologized for the Last Supper parody poster, Donohue acknowledges, but what about the sex toys in the shape of crucifixes? Are they cool with that? What about the Church’s anti-gay rhetoric, retorts editor Fred Kuhr? Are they cool with that? They don’t have the right to mock my religion, replies Donohue (erroneously). Do you know what kind of hate mail I got the last time I was on with you, says Kuhr? Do you know what kind of hate mail I get all the time, counters Donohue? At which point they segue into a brief debate about how much of a loser Kuhr is before Doocy rings the bell.
Donohue does get off a killer line, though. You’ll know it when you hear it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Donohue is a belligerent moron that is fodder for people who try to compare Islamic violence with Catholic dogma. He only hurts his own cause.
MadisonConservative on October 26, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Donahue acting as a voice of reason!?
He’s great all the way to “All we ask is for Catholics to be treated as if they were gay.” Then he has to go and ruin it…
All the way up to the very end though, is brilliant work. Now I see why they still deal with him. He does have his clear moments.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Treat Catholics as if they were gays? Do they really want that much attention?
BacaDog on October 26, 2007 at 2:26 PM
This one should be labeled comedy gold.
SouthernDem on October 26, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Great line!
Kensington on October 26, 2007 at 2:27 PM
It opens up like it could be on South Park. “They only apologized for the poster, they did not apologize for the crucifix being used as a sex toy, strippers being hung in cages above a catholic church on Sunday, and nuns being abused.”
0.o
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Bl*wjobs in public, grown men with erect penises in full view of kids, phallic crucifixes, oh my!
The Race Card on October 26, 2007 at 2:29 PM
“Treat Catholics as if we were gays, and then we’ll be happy!”
The last debate between these two ended badly/predictably also. Donahue called the other dude a loser – and now Donahue says, “I thought that was kind…”
nailinmyeye on October 26, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I should say, it is kinda.
nailinmyeye on October 26, 2007 at 2:31 PM
No, I’m the mostest discriminated against.
terryannonline on October 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Nobody is going to mistake these two for Dinesh and Hitch.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Treat Catholics as if they were gays and then we would all be happy.
Well, doesn’t that just nail it!
I saw the Zombie photo essay. The type of depravity that went on in the strrets of S.F. was truly nauseating. Yeah, I know about all this stuff, but to watch it play out in a public square was enough to make me sick. Can you imagine if you had small children with you and wandered by accident into this? The police did nothing in the face of unremitting depravity that is certainly against the “technical” law. All fueled by Miller Beer…
For over 30 years now I have found some images and descriptions keep me up at night. Feminine mutilation is one of them. Men behaving in an obscene way is another. I don’t get it, but it certainly bothers me. I don’t need a Catholic guy to tell me that. They bother me terribly, period.
This raises the bigger question; are my rights to not be revolted by depravity superseeded by someone elses? Or, has my definition of depravity become so obsolete that some may do what went on at the Folsom Street fair with impunity? Who shall have their rights protected; those that anally stimulate themselves in the street or, my right to walk the street without being subject to these displays?
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Nuh-uh, I am!
*sigh* I can’t stand Donahue…makes us look bad.
Bad Candy on October 26, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Treat Catholics as if they were gay? Man, there’s a bunch of tasteless humour just waiting to be exploited but all of it will test the limits of the TOS at HotAir.
Krydor on October 26, 2007 at 2:48 PM
I wonder what all the homosexual priests have to say about this? There seems to be a bizarre dogma in the CC that you can’t have a wife, but keep the homosexual activity downplayed. Rape little boys and see the world. It would seem not allowing married men to be ordained attracts some real screwballs that are tolerated.
Meanwhile, same sex attraction is dealt with as a sin in Catholicism for the laity, and with events like this last one in SF, it’s no wonder. Homosexuality left to its own devices is true perversion based on the photos I saw.
Hate the sin, but love the sinner. Tough to do when they are in assless chaps and slapping Mr Happy in front of a bunch of kids, next to the whipping fat men exhibit.
Hening on October 26, 2007 at 2:49 PM
When you think about it, a precident has been set. You may anally stimulate yourself in public in San Fran without legal intervention (Zombie has the photos). What would stop anyone legally from performing the same task at various other locations? After all, the government allowed it at the Folsom Street Fair…
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Insert priest joke here.
Okay seriously, if the beer company likes this stuff so much, then Miller needs to feel it in the backside…the wallet specifically.
Black Adam on October 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Donohue is a belligerent moron that is fodder for people who try to compare Islamic violence with Catholic dogma. He only hurts his own cause.
MadisonConservative on October 26, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I’m a Catholic, and I agree with you. HOWEVER – is there anyone else? Why is it we get a lay-person, Dononue, and no priests? Where are they?
reine.de.tout on October 26, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Wish I could have said what you did so succinctly, Babs. My thoughts exactly. I wonder what would be said if I dressed in my USMC dress blues, marched down the street on the University of Mn campus with my rosary in hand, my white skin freshly shaved and shouting God Bless the USA and God Bless our Troops. Would Mr.(I use the term loosely)Kuhr support my right to do so? I wouldn’t hold my breath. Mt. Donahoe doesn’t really speak for me, but I sure like his willingness to get into the face of my Faith’s attackers.
I challenge those who trash my beliefs almost daily . It’s time to fight back, on so many fronts as a conservative, to boot.
MNDavenotPC on October 26, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Mr. Donahoe, I meant to say
MNDavenotPC on October 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
I happened to catch this this morning. Donahue was pretty hardcore. BTW, is there a complete lack of public decency laws in SF?
CP on October 26, 2007 at 3:00 PM
(sung to the tune of Folsom Prison)
I’m choking on my chicken,
my boyfriend on the other end,
got a gerbil where there ain’t no sunshine,
and two Miller beers opened..
I’m stuck at the Folsom Street Fair,
but that’s where I want to stay,
and let all the local homies,
blow my blues away.
Hening on October 26, 2007 at 3:01 PM
That’s a good point. You never do see a priest defending the Catholic Church do you? Maybe they’re too busy doing priestly things, or all of the ones interested in television are booked on EWTN.
You’d think they could get a Jesuit or something!
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 3:02 PM
The problem with most priests is that they are too damn non-judgmental and too damn progressive these days to have a negative opinion about using crucifixes as dildos.
jihadwatcher on October 26, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I thought Jesus took care of Donahue with his shuriken…
Bad Candy on October 26, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I saw this this morning and thought Donahue was pretty great, although I hate when conversations deteriorate into who has “rights” and who doesn’t.
I loved it when the apologist for perversion whined about being called a “loser”. Boo-Hoo!
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Why do Catholics always first identify themselves as Catholics, and not as Christians?
I’m a Christian and, even though I’m a Protestant, my first inclination is to always identify myself as a Christian – not as a Protestant. For that matter, I’m non-denominational. After all, you either believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that He died for your sins and that, through Him, your sins are forgiven. Or, you don’t.
Isn’t that what really matters?
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Sadly, there’s a simple answer for that. Ask the average person on the street what they think of when they hear the word priest. I guarantee, thanks to the media, they think “child molester”.
I went to Catholic school from Kindergarten-8th grade, and I can tell you this: The teachers were liberal indoctrinators, and the priests were the only ones who seemed honest and made any sense to me. I know better about what the average priest is like, but your average joe does not. Put a priest on, and any slime who would do anything to discredit their opponent will make the most crude and unwarranted jokes and/or accusations. That is the state of the Catholic Church, and it’s not going to change for some time.
MadisonConservative on October 26, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Let me preface this first off by saying I completely agree that what happened at the Folsom St Fair was really, really bothersome as far as the authorities turning a blind eye to public sex and exhibitionism. Inexcusable.
That said, do you often wander into public sex displays? Is this a common occurrence in your life? The point being that many folks in Frisco know what is going to happen at this event and steer clear of the area if they are offended by it. The likelihood that anyone will unwittingly wander into this area without prior knowledge of the event has got to be minuscule. Again, I’m not condoning what happened there, I actually think it’s reprehensible in that it reinforces stereotypes of homosexuals.
There was a content warning on Zombies post and here, if I’m not mistaken. You certainly have the right to be offended by the behavior you witnessed, but you were warned and still chose to view it.
If it keeps you up at night, it’s your own fault.
SouthernDem on October 26, 2007 at 3:18 PM
There is a priest that appears regularly on FOX. Don’t know his name but he stands up for decency on a regular basis.
I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I HAVE NO IMMEDIATE DOG IN THIS FIGHT. I will say though that I know depravity when I see it and, the Folsom Street Fair displayed it in spades. Who else is standing up and saying that this is obscene?
Maybe the bigger question you should be asking, rather than bashing the Catholic church, is why isn’t anyone else speaking out about this kind of sickness?
You let the Catholics carry the ball and then you bash them over gay priests. If there was someone else out there speaking out then maybe their voice wouldn’t be the source of such derision and the only source of opposition.
I ask you again, after looking at Zombie’s photos essay, would you have liked to wander into this with children?
Hey, go ahead and knock the guy; gay priests, etc. So, that makes the Folsom street fair OK in your book? Talk about hipocracy. Yeah, the p[riests did something obscene so, let’s everyone else cut loose with public displays.
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
That’s actually one of the issues that Martin Luther had with the Catholic Church. He got married and didn’t see anywhere in scripture where he could not.
And too, I know I’m beating a dead horse here, but this guy talks about offending ‘Catholics’. This is the problem that the rest of the community has against Catholics. Crucifixes are generally Catholic. . . BUT the offenses were against the sensibilities of CHRISTIANS.
The problem, and why Catholics don’t get a lot of sympathy from non-Catholics, is that they think Catholic means Christian. In other words, it is offensive to them that non-Catholic Christians call themselves ‘Christians’. It is blasphemous to them.
He’d do himself a service and get a lot more backing if he was concerned with CHRISTIAN’S and not merely ‘Catholics’. Dogma doesn’t allow him to do that though.
ThackerAgency on October 26, 2007 at 3:19 PM
So if Christians were going to have a ‘Soddom and Gommorah’ themed festival, you don’t think there would be a problem with a poster of a gleeful God casting lightning bolts to destroy a bunch of gays having sex acts? Would there be no outrage at people walking around performing mock exorcisms on gay people at this fair and praying in a public city street?
ThackerAgency on October 26, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Agreed, especially in Religion class. We had some terrible teachers who were just brought up from CED or RCIA to read from the books. Very pious, but also very liberal without much knowledge of their own beliefs. And when they went to Catholic Social Teaching…
But the Priests made a lot more sense and were better at describing things that were simply over the heads of my teachers. And by my assumption about 2/3’s of “Catholics” are really Protestant. The Catholic Church does a terrible job of teaching their own faith. I had a conversation with a Catholic friend about what he believed. Found out he was really Protestant going to a Catholic Church because his parents make him, and he didn’t even know it till I explained it to him. Same issues with other kids in my class.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Well let me take that back, 2/3’s are either Protestant or Secular.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 3:31 PM
No, that’s not what I was implying. I was more challenging “the images of gays fellating in the streets kept me up” aspect.
But to counter what you said, the overall point of the Fair wasn’t to condemn or criticize a group of people. Sadly, it was an aspect to some it would seem.
SouthernDem on October 26, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Folsom was indecent and obscene. It’s an issue of local law enforcement. Child molestation is a far more serious crime. However, you don’t need to reform the Catholic church in order to tell a guy in San Fran to put a sock on it.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Catholic does mean Christian, and there’s no good reason why Catholics should have to avoid saying so. Mind you, as far as I’m concerned, the same goes for any other faction of Christianity. It’s no skin off my nose if a Protestant equates Protestantism with Christianity.
Kensington on October 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Well Southern, isn’t that an interesting comment…
So, I should ignore (don’t click on it, man) public displays of depravity because it upsets me? How about FGM in the Muslim world? Should I just ignore that too because it upsets me? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
I am a tourist in San Fran and I should know better than to wander into a scene of total depravity, after all only a “miniscule” number of peole would willingly wander into this public space…. I can tell you that I have been a tourist in San Fran and I have gotten lost. So, my observance of what ever should be chalked up to my poor navigation should be my fault.
What about the people that are trying to raise children in the neighborhood? Oh, sorry dear, we are baricaded into our apartment today because the insane are running around the streets today with their dicks hanging out…
What you are really saying is that people should be able to use the streets to display complete depravity and those of us that unwittingly find themselves whitnesses should assume that it is their fault for “wandering in” to something that they are not invited to attend.
Does “public” mean anything to you or is that a relative term?
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Father Jonathan Morris comments regularly on Fox News and has a regular column with them too, and a video blog. He commented on Fox News Channel about this very issue, I believe.
He’s a MUCH better commentator than Bill Donohue, mostly because he makes it a point NEVER to call people names or personally judge them. BUT he also doesn’t hesistate to call evil things evil, and he always represents Catholic teaching accurately and charitably. The best spokeperson for the Catholic Church I’ve EVER seen.
Icing on the cake: he’s pleasant, frequently smiling, quick thinking, and young and telegenic (for the YouTube crowd who needs such things to listen to anyone) when speaking on TV too. (Unlike Mr. Grumpy above.)
Here’s his current column archive at FOX:
http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,133,00.html
Hope lots more Catholic priests step up to the plate too! We need them.
inviolet on October 26, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I think that the gay community went too far with the Folsom Street Fair this time. The spotlight is on. If they wanted to continue this, they should have kept it a little more quiet and we would not have even been aware of its existence. And that Fred guy thinks the amount of beer sold at that event OUTWEIGHS the negative publicity, and others who will no longer buy their product? Is he kidding?
CrimsonFisted on October 26, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Uh, Bill Donahue works for the Catholic League, and one of the things that happened was that they hung a stripper in a cage over the Catholic Church.
You may want to read this post from MM about toddlers being brought to the fair, dressed up in bondage costume, by their parents, Gary and John.
These kids have no choice in the matter.
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I agree that Father Morris has exceptional TV skills. My guess is that the shows think the Donohue bombast keep viewers glued.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Wow, great answer. I’ll just assume that my question went right by you, like a freight train.
P.S. I loved the “Uh.” It fits you.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I was (unfortunately) at a speech on SUnday, given by the Caldean minister Donohue referenced. The man is all but president of the Blame America First crowd.
At least our Pope has balls.
dm60462 on October 26, 2007 at 3:47 PM
This Catholic disagrees.
mikeyboss on October 26, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Yeah, I saw it and found it to be disgusting and hope that DSS is investigating (unlikely, but one can hope).
Again, I’m not defending the behavior of some at the Fair. I’m talking about this:
and the assumption that someone would unwittingly walk into a Fair such as this or that someone, against their will, views sexual acts they are offended by.
SouthernDem on October 26, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Catholic does indeed mean Christian. So we don’t need to add a qualifier. The vast majority of Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians in the US and around the world understand this very well: our belief in Jesus, like Presbyterians or Methodists, puts us in the religious category “Christian.”
But when speaking with those who may not understand that (usually evangelical or fundamentalist Christians, ironically both fellow Christians), I sometimes do modify this and call myself “Catholic Christian.”
This is BOTH out of respect for their Christianity AND to emphasize to some who may be ignorant, or unfortunately bigoted (I run into more than I’d like who think “Catholic Christian” is an oxymoron) that Catholics are Christians. My volunteer work puts me elbow to elbow with loads of non-Catholic Christians. I don’t call them “Protestants” though, out of respect for them, because many of them find that offensive: “we’re not protesting anything, we’re just Christians!”
inviolet on October 26, 2007 at 4:17 PM
SouthernDem on October 26, 2007 at 4:03 PM
This fair is taking place on a public street, not on private property. Why do they have the “right” to make parts of the city inaccessible, except to pervs?
Surely some of these people have some rich friends with a mega mansion and lots of land they could lend or rent them, maybe with a nice dungeon they can role play in. Or maybe they could just rent some land to frolic in, kinda like Woodstock. I don’t care what they do, as long as the location is remote.
By the way, this event gets funding from the S.F. hotel tax, so that’s public money that’s being used too.
You’re right! Your comment on a thread that talks about a spokesman from the Catholic League who is complaining about a bunch of freaks hanging a cage over the Catholic Church went right over my head.
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Again Southern… You tell me that I should mind my own business regarding things that are happening in public.
Do you understand that I don’t give a whit about what happens between consenting adults in private? That my arguement is solely about public displays?
We live in a country that vociferously debates a crech or a menorah during the holiday season. Somehow, acts of depravity on a public street need to take a pass due to “sexual tollerance”? It is the double standard that I am unwilling to put up with.
I should know better than to walk certain streets during a sex fair and yet, no one should know better than to walk by a cresh or menorah? Do you see my point?
I am offended by sexual displays in the street. Why is it that my observation should take second place to others that are offended by religious displays, or any other type of societal display for that matter.
We seem to be very closely regulating ourselves when it comes to societal offense of mainstream thinking. Not so much of new thinking like homosexual depravity and cultural traits of the Arab/Muslim world; FGM being one of them.
Why do I keep bringing up FGM? Isn’t that the exact opposite of men being gratified in the streets?
Shall I turn my back and consider myself an interloper in their plight? What difference do you see? They both offend me on a very basic level.
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I’ve wondered that myself. And you gave a good answer too, inviolet.
Having grown up Southern Baptist, there is a tendency on the part of some in non-Catholic-Evangelical circles to separate the two as well, the causality of which I’m not sure.
Of course, this fight is nothing new. There are many “Catholics” who aren’t Christians, but there are many “Baptists” that aren’t either. It would certainly be better if the fierce denominationalism that goes on would take a back seat to unity as “Christians”. As the Apostles’ Creed says, “I believe in…the holy catholic (little ‘c’, as in ‘universal’) church.
CP on October 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I’m a Catholic and I don’t feel this way…reference please? Or is this something you are projecting that Catholic’s think?
Why is this a ‘bizarre dogma’? Please explain?
PappaMac on October 26, 2007 at 4:39 PM
That’s biggest pile of crap I’ve seen on this board in a while. The Church has spoken doctrinely on the issue of homosexuality, and same-sex attraction is not treated as a sin. You have no idea what the Catholic teaching on sin is apparently. . . And this idea that celibacy is a cause of depravity – have you read the news about sexual predators in the nation’s schools . . . if only we let them marry! Geesh. Hot Air pisses me off sometimes.
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 4:45 PM
If you think that my comment, supra, specifically referred to a spokesman for the Catholic League, and was not a general question involving Catholics AS A WHOLE, then, once again – here’s the whoosh of a freight train running by you. It was a general question. And I don’t need any snot-nosed, argumentative, attention seeking answers from you.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Then why do “Catholic Bibles,” including The Douey-Rheims Translation, use the term “Christian” in Acts 11:26? Why not just say that the disciples were first called Catholics in Antioch?
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Because that’s what the Catholic Church has done since the first heresies . . . read the Church Fathers. Specifically St. Cyril of Jerusalem who wrote, “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.”
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 4:51 PM
this is the second biggest pile of steaming crap I’ve seen on Hot Air today. I’m a Catholic and I have no problem with others calling themselves as Christian – and the Church itself teaches this as well.
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 4:55 PM
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
Paragraph 819 from the Catechism. Catholics believe the Church in Rome is divinely instituted and therein contains the fullness of salvation and grace, though non-Catholics may partake to varying degrees. I believe there was a big hoopala when Benedict XVI said that Protestants can’t have “Churches”, this is because of Catholic Doctrine.
Catholics don’t say that Protestants aren’t “Christians” but we would spend a lot longer in Purgatory, and we don’t have the “fullness of Grace” whatever that means(a lot longer in Purgatory?).
There’s more nuance there than you are letting us believe. Sure in the 1800’s Protestants were damned to hell, but things have changed.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
someone needs a good ‘ole history lesson . . . but pearls, swine, and all that prevents me from starting today
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Because the word used in the Greek xristianos means CHRISTIAN! So they are going to TRANSLATE what’s in the Greek!
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Are you a graduate of the Buy Danish school of unresponsiveness?
I asked a simple question about Acts 11:26; and it’s use of “Christian” – not “Catholic.”
The question, once again, was why? I anxiously await your next zinger – unresponsive as it will be.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Katholikes or Katholike, both Greek, means “Universal.”
Once again, why use “Christian” in Acts 11:26, instead of “Catholic.”
Wow, I had no idea that this was so difficult.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:08 PM
are you as dense as you seem? seriously? it’s translated “Christian” because that’s the term in Greek. The use of the word “Catholic” to describe the Church *developed* later (just as the use of the word “Christian” developed right before your eyes in the book of Acts). Is that responsive enough? Or am I going to have write a tome on this thing?
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 5:08 PM
See Katholikes or Katholike, supra. Defined as “Universal.”
I’ll save your use of “dense,” for your next lack of responsiveness.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Here is the verse in question in its original greek:
και ευρων ηγαγεν αυτον εις αντιοχειαν εγενετο δε αυτους ενιαυτον ολον συναχθηναι τη εκκλησια και διδαξαι οχλον ικανον χρηματισαι τε πρωτον εν αντιοχεια τους μαθητας χριστιανους
Where’s Katholikes?
And in case that doesn’t get through here’s a transliteration: “kai euron egagen auton eis antoicheian egeneto de autous eniauton olon sunahthenai te ekklesia kai didaxai ochlon ikanon chrematisai te proton en antiocheia tous mathetas CHRISTIANOUS“
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Dude, you really are as dense as you seem. Wonder of wonders.
katholikos doesn’t appear in the passage from Acts – that’s why it’s not translated as “Catholic.” Is that so hard to grasp?
You asked: “Why not just say that the disciples were first called Catholics in Antioch?”
Because they weren’t. They were called christianos.
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 5:17 PM
People don’t call themselves ‘Baptist Christians’, or ‘Protestant Christians’, or ‘Methodist Christians’. When speaking universally most Protestants consider themselves merely ‘Christian’.
My point is that most Catholics consider themselves ‘Catholics’ rather than Christians.
But the question is, do you (as a Catholic) consider Protestants to be Christian? THIS is going to be the problem of this Pope’s claimed desire to ‘unify Christians’. He doesn’t want to ‘unify Christians’ he wants to turn everyone into Catholics.
I don’t have a problem considering Catholics Christians. I prefer to refer to them as CHRISTIANS than any other qualifier. That’s why I dislike the term ‘evangelical’ so much because CHRISTIAN should suffice.
I would love to unite the Christian Church, but it needs to be under Christ and not any other sort of religious dogma.
ThackerAgency on October 26, 2007 at 5:20 PM
See my previous post on this subject. It pretty much wraps up what the Church teaches on that matter.
Catholics consider Christians Christian, just not Catholic. It’d be like how a Methodist and a Baptist are Evangelical, but can still be Methodist and Baptist. We are still Christian, but not Catholic and therefore cannot have the “fullness of Grace.”
Yes to Catholic dogma “Christian unity” means becoming Catholic.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Sorry, I mean to say they consider protestants christian, not Christians Christian.
Keljeck on October 26, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Your comment came out of the blue and it had a slightly irritating tone of moral relativism and a hint of anti-Catholic bigotry. And I say that as a non-Catholic.
This is the message I got: You’re a non-denominational Protestant and why can’t we all just be like you?!
If that’s not what you meant to say, then perhaps you can explain what relevance your comment had to this particular thread.
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 5:23 PM
This whole comment section if full of crap today. Where, OH WHERE, is it written that one can’t consider themselves Catholic Christians? The word Catholic to describe the Church was first used (that we know of) around the year 105 AD. 105 AD!!!!! We’ve been doing it that way for at least 1,902 years and *we’re* the oddities. OK.
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 5:24 PM
OhEssYou,
Oh, and may I ad that using the word “Supra” instead of “above” is a bit “attention getting”. But that’s just me!
Moreover the idea that we are all just one big Christian porridge whose members don’t “self-identify” as anything but “Christians” (unless one is a Catholic of course!) ignores history, beginning with our founding and moving across the Atlantic Ocean and back in time.
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Okay, for the last time. I asked why Catholics first identify themselves as “Catholics,” instead of as “Christians”? A response said that “Catholic” meant “Christian.” If that is the case, then why would the “Catholic Bibles” use the term “Christian” in Acts 11:26, instead of “Catholic”? If the “Catholic Bibles” use the term, “Christian,” wouldn’t it follow that Catholics would, too? The implication was, that the terms were synonymous – which they aren’t – inasmuch as Katholikes and Katholike mean “Universal” in the Greek. If, in fact, “Christian” was used in Acts 11:26, and not Katholikes or Katholike, then, once again, in light of the above, why would a Catholic first identify himself as such, instead of as a “Christian”?
The relevance – clearly – was that Christians should first identify themselves as such – not as any particular denomination. My faith is not in a denomination, it is in Jesus Christ. Thus, I first refer to myself as a Christian. If that is “slightly irritating,” so be it. As for “moral relativism,” inasmuch as I am seeking the primary use of the term “Christian,” instead of any particular, man-made denomination – “moral relativism” does not follow.
At any rate, it was a simple question, gone awry on a message board. So be it.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:40 PM
1 Corinthians 1:10 – Now I beseech you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Why? Because you say so?
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 5:46 PM
If, in fact, “Christian” was used in Acts 11:26, and not Katholikes or Katholike, then, once again, in light of the above, why would a Catholic first identify himself as such, instead of as a “Christian”?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
disagree but intelligently . . . that’s all i ask
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Comprehend, that’s all I ask.
No, because Paul said so, supra.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:53 PM
This is my last post, regarding this matter.
My simple question, alas, is left unanswered.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I don’t understand why Catholics are not also ‘evangelical’. Evangelical means one who preaches the Gospel. Don’t Catholics preach the Gospel from the same Christian Bible? Again, I’m just trying to explain where the ‘anti-Catholic’ crap comes from. Elitism doesn’t go over well with most people, much less Christians.
Christian unity needs to be under CHRIST. Until people recognize CHRIST as the center of the universal Faith, the CHRISTIAN church will not be unified. All Christians will never be Catholic. When you get a Pope who recognizes that, maybe there will be hope in unifying the Christian Church under Christ.
ThackerAgency on October 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I comprehend – you think that in having a conversation with multiple people at once, you’re really having a conversation with the one person whom you originally questioned. Makes perfect sense to me.
tizzidale on October 26, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I CAN HAS DIZKRIMINASHUN…?
ReubenJCogburn on October 26, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Where is your proof of this?
PappaMac on October 26, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Oh for Christ’s sake ( yes, I know what I typed). We call ourselves Catholic to identify ourselves as the original Christians not the only ones. As far as the Pope goes, if ANYONE would read completely what Benedict XVI says and writes, of course he touts the Catholic church. He also credits and accepts the other Christian dogmas as also blessed and valued. The universality of the Trinity is recognized. We don’t want to make everyone Catholic, either. You either accept the Faith or you don’t, no one is forced into it. Sure we’d like all to be Catholic, but so what? I keep getting a steady diet in these threads of atheistic dogma, what’s the purpose of that for? To argue for their dogma. Oh and as far as everyone’s always equating the Church with pedophilia, it’s the homosexual culture that was accepted in years past that was the perpetrator. Of course, this is soooo sacrosanct a topic not to bring up, though.
MNDavenotPC on October 26, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Are you arguing that Catholic priests read about the Stonewall riots and, then, decided to start raping children?
I don’t think the scandal takes away from the grandeur of the church, but the abuses predate the gay rights movement and have more to do with the recruits who came into the priesthood seeking celibacy as a way of escaping their sexual desires.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 6:37 PM
The militant gay agenda (that doesn’t exist BTW LOL!) consists of these kind of arguments that force the public to be exposed to the depravity of the gay lifestyle. These people are simply immoral. And not so much because of the sexual acts they are engaging in, but because they want to put it in everyones face. Public acts of sexual perversion? Why in public? Why not take a trip into the redwoods and do this stuff?
Because they are militant gays and they have an agenda that they are attempting to further.
csdeven on October 26, 2007 at 6:48 PM
The militant gays are the bad guys here, not Catholics, Christians, or any other faith that espouses morality and decency.
Lets attack the scum, not those who battle the scum.
csdeven on October 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM
OK, I went out for dinner and came back to find a Catholic vs. Christian bash fest. Do any of you realize that our similarities are greater than our differences? We are fighting a cultural as well as ideological war here in the U.S. (and Europoe). This kind of dissention only divides us, it doesn’t unite us.
Can we all all, Christians of every stripe, agree that the Folsom St. Fest threatens all of us and only serves to weaken us in the face of what is truly threatening us?
After all, this did not start out as a Christian ideological war. Funny how you all decided to morph it into one.
Babs on October 26, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Once again, Babs….. you make a salient point.
MNDavenotPC on October 26, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Wow, the temperature sure changed in here!
Total ditto!
It did get answered. I’m sorry that you didn’t like the answer. But here’s another anyway though: For the same reason that Christians use the words “Incarnation” and “Trinity” and the phrase “accept Jesus as your Savior” and all of these are Christian teachings even though NONE of them appears in the text of the Bible.
And while I’m on the subject…
Tizzidale!
Your posts are AWESOME, sir or ma’am. For lack of a bettah word, I *venerate* your apologetics ability.
inviolet on October 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM
The Pope actually said that. I don’t expect Catholics to pay attention to the Pope though.
Anyway, I agree that the point is this festival is CHRISTIAN bashing. My problem with this guy was he considered it to be ‘Catholic bashing’. As a Christian I was offended too. The Catholic League will get a lot more allies if they begin to champion the cause of CHRISTIANS rather than just Catholics. They’ll hear a lot more AMEN’s than anything if they begin to refer to themselves as Christians.
I understand that it doesn’t matter. I understand that the problem is the anti-Christian climate in this country. . . no matter how it is characterized (anti-Catholic).
ThackerAgency on October 26, 2007 at 7:26 PM
This is a very good point regarding the culture wars, and many Catholic Christians agree with you. The Catholic League sometimes takes your advice in its public statements, but not always, and I think they should. Many Catholic Christian commentators and bloggers make a point of including all Christians (and some include devout Jews and moderate Muslims too) in the culture war topics. Several columnists on Townhall, for example, do this, and one TV commentator (just off the top of my head; I’m sure there are others) who includes all Christians in these topics is Fr. Jonathan Morris, mentioned above, of Fox News.
inviolet on October 26, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Perhaps because there has been a lot of Catholic bashing going on, such as this.
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 8:01 PM
It’s like if you ask someone where they live, and they say “Philadelphia” instead of “Pennsylvania”. It’s just a matter of how specific they want to be.
mikeyboss on October 26, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Here’s a little history on what’s happened to the Catholic Church in certain parishes in San Francisco.
Fine! What was the result?
Isn’t it more on topic to ask:
Why is it that people “self-identify” as homosexuals?
Buy Danish on October 26, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I make the distinction between the two when people hear my maiden name, because they automatically assume that I am Catholic. And because I don’t want to be too closely associated with my mother’s family, who is the reason why I have less respect for what the Catholic Church teaches its followers.
When my parents got married, they were both Catholic. When he became a born again Christian, my mother was LIVID. She wanted my brother and I to make our first communion, just because it was “tradition” and she had no idea why it was done. My dad has been questioning the church for a long time, but when I was 3 he finally took the leap. My mother had little respect for my father after that. Took her almost 30 years later before she decided that she did not love him anymore and divorced him. Five months after the divorce was finalized, she marries a Muslim from Jordan.
The rest of the family is no better — a good portion of that side of the family is racist, everyone is in everyone else’s business, etc. They all identify themselves as Catholics.
My dad’s family was Catholic. All of his brothers and sisters (except my uncle Dick) became born again. My grandparents became born again, even though they still attended Catholic church because that was what they knew. They are all very, very good people.
ScoopPC11 on October 26, 2007 at 9:28 PM
The love (read: sex) that dare not speak its name has become the love (read: sex) that nobody ever shuts up about, lest they be called a bigot.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 10:33 PM
By my understanding the “Evangelical” tag is given to socially conservative Protestants. Catholics are generally united as a voting block, and take seperate issues more seriously (for instance Abortion is above the War… if you listen to the Pope). Why call the Eastern Church Orthodox if all Christian Churches are Orthodox? Has to do with convenience really.
And the Catholics use a slightly different Bible which includes the Apocrypha!
As for Unity under Christ, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He is here in his place, and the Roman Catholic Church was divinely instituted by Christ himself. Installing Peter as the first Pope. So to the Catholic unity in Christ means joining the Church. Another argument to be made is that Catholics only accept Catholic Eucharist (unless it’s Lutheran in extreme circumstances, apparently). Because only they and a few others realize that it is really Jesus in his full body, blood, and divinity in the Eucharist. Can’t very well have much unity in Christ if you aren’t eating him with everyone else.
There’s a lot of doctrinal differences. Say one thing to a Catholic and a Protestant and they’ll agree, find out what they mean and then they’ll disagree. And for the record I went to a Catholic High School but consider myself Methodist.
Keljeck on October 27, 2007 at 1:38 AM
Wow, there’s so much crap that gets said on this board. Amazing.
Why do Catholics call themselves “Catholics”? Why do Presbyterians call themselves “Presbyterians”? Protestants love to act all high-and-mighty when it comes to “were all Christians,” but give me a break…since the Reformation you folks have splintered off into about zillion different One True Churches. Hate to break it to you, but it’s true. The simple fact of the matter is we are all Christians (if you accept the Nicene Creed), but some of us think that OUR brand of Christianity is more correct than others. This is all the Pope was saying when he released that document a little while ago about Protestant Churches not being “true” churches that caused such an unecessary uproar…because their understanding of the sacraments was incorrect. He still viewed them as Christians, just not Catholic, and in the Pope’s opinion, not fully part of what Christ instituted on earth.
WillBarrett on October 27, 2007 at 2:48 AM
Gotta love Bill…
benrand on October 27, 2007 at 6:30 AM
Some people read into posts what they wish to get pissed off about.
While attending a retreat at a Trappist monastery, I ran into a group of priests that are part of a Catholic organization designed to help people with same sex attraction. Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin, but acting upon that attraction is in the Catholic Church.
Nowhere in my post did I say that celibacy is the cause of depravity. My point was that by turning away men that are married or wish to be married and raise a family from the prieshood, you open the door to men that don’t wish to marry since they are homosexual, and have sexual relations while priests. The homosexual porno ring in Maine that was being run by local priests is an example of this culture in the church.
You might want to read over something to make sure you understand it before flying off the handle.
Hening on October 27, 2007 at 7:02 AM
Thanks, Hening, for that clarification, and for mentioning that group. The national ministry for this is called Courage (maybe the one in your area is a local of this, or maybe they have another name). Here’s Courage’s site if anyone’s interested (they have a Wiki page too):
http://couragerc.net/
inviolet on October 27, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »