May 7, 2006

"Episcopalians elect straight bishop"

It makes the headlines these days when Episcopalians elect a straight "bishop." San Francisco Bay Area members of the Episcopal Diocese of California did that on Saturday, and their three avowedly homosexual candidates got the fewest votes among the seven hopefuls.

As you might expect, though, the "bishop"-elect, Mark Andrus, 49, is straight only personally, not theologically or politically. After being elected, he claimed that the vote was one for "inclusion and communion of gay and lesbian people in their full lives" and for "expression of our common desire to be part of...the world, in what may be a new way."

Naturally, Andrus did not explain how or why a "new way" could suddenly show up now to take the place of Judaic and Christian sexual morality after about four millennia.

In any case, would it not be good if "liberal" Catholics, lay and otherwise, in our Archdiocese would support the naming of only straight bishops in the USA from now on?

By the way, be sure to check out the comments on all my posts -- and especially on the recent one, "Another REC transcript." In particular, good friend Jared there offers excellent insights, analysis and research in support of not recruiting homosexuals for the seminaries and priesthood; and the other commenters have thoughtful remarks, too.

9 Comments:

Blogger Jared said...

Aw, thanks Quintero. Couldn't do it without you, Kenneth Fisher, and a certain anonymous poster. Just keep putting the word out. The truth will out. Perhaps soon.

3:56 PM  
Anonymous dave said...

Hey Q look at this:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1053

11:11 PM  
Blogger Jared said...

Dave: That is seriously messed up. As I posted there, the bishops need to keep in mind the words of St. Paul when he writes: "What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" 2Cor6:15

Until Mohammed suppressed the rest, "Allah" was just one among hundreds of pre-Mohammedanistic pagan gods worshipped by the Arabians. So, why should the Mohammedans have ANY say about what goes on or gets displayed in a Catholic church?

My other question has always been: was Mohammed a liar, demonically-deceived, or just bats?

He said that Gabriel told him a bunch of stuff that ain't true. (And I know Gabriel; that guy doesn't tell people ANYTHING what ain't so.) In the Koran, "Allah" even asserts that Christians worship a "Trinity" of "God, Jesus, and Mary." (Gabriel and Mary were tight; he wouldn't go telling people she or anyone else thought she was the Holy Spirit.)

Now, it's possible that Mohammed just made that up or that he was just nuts, bonkers, cuckoo, unhinged.

But, I tend to think, judging from the power and influence that Mohammedanism has over so much of the world, that there is definitely some demonic influence involved, at least in the spreading of this heresy.

But, if a demon, in the guise of Gabriel, had spoken directly to Mohammed, would he have made up a "straw man" like that? I mean, I know demons don't fight fair ever, but this kind of misrepresentation is of the sort that, if Muslims ever found out that that ISN'T our Trinity, that they might have a crisis of faith (in Mohammedanism) and MIGHT just come to a belief in the Truth (Catholic Christianity). It's just foolish to lie in that way since, if you're gonna make stuff up, you might as well make it at least plausible. Say that we lied. Say that we editted the Bible to make it say that Jesus was God ('cause I guess they think that we're like Superman and that Jesus is like Mr. Mxyzptlk and we had to get Him to say His name backwards so He can go back to Heaven). Say ... well, anything more plausible than that.

So, the question is: Was Mohammed a demoniac, a lying so-and-so, or section 8?

3:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PLEASE JARED - or someone -PLEASE forward ared's excellent fisk to Dr. Gordon!!!!

Dolores

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Mark said...

Have you read the editorial in the latest issue of "The Tidings"?

http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0505/editorial.htm

It attempts to cast immigration reform as a pro-life issue, and it attempts to make abortion and immigration reform equivalent in moral weight:

"So yes, immigration reform is a pro-life issue, just as abortion is. Both are social justice issues; both are civil rights issues (abortion, as George Weigel has said, accurately and repeatedly, is the single greatest civil rights issue of our time). We cannot talk about life without talking about justice and rights."

"Which makes both, of course, political issues. And if we as a church are going to get involved in one, we cannot stay out of the other. That is a basic understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, something which we as church have failed to effectively convey to our faithful."

I'd appreciate you devoting a blog entry to commenting on this editorial and inviting others to do the same.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous DAve said...

You know the Tidings is a valuable resource in your home when you're scared to expose your children to it-

Jared you are correct and doing great work. Keep it up!!!

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...

"Episcopalians Elect 'Straight' Bishop"

Other headlines of the same ilk:

"Jeff Kent Batting .400"

"Paris Hilton Joins Convent"

"Cadillac Making Compact Hybrids"

"Cdl. Mahony Joins SSPX"

"God Announces He's An Atheist"

3:24 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for the funny headlines and for the chuckles they give me!

10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS....

You're quite welcome, Q-man! :)

12:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter