Isn't it sad that the very free speech about which you write, is denied on this blog... seeing as my post was deleted. What virtue, that the smearing of this fine young man's reputation would be allowed, yet his defense not. Could it be that the truth tears at some sides? "...why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goad." Here it is again, in the hope that it won't happen again:
I think all of you are ridiculous with all of your rants and tirades. Jon, remaining faithful to the Church, was more than prepared to take the type of crap that you all are doling out. I think that the fact that he is 18 and knows Church teaching better than all of you is kind of eating at you... why else tear at someone because of their age? He is one of the most faithful Catholics that I have ever seen. If any of you knew what he had to do to become Catholic, you would sing a different tune as to his apparent lack of wisdom due to his age.
It pains me that you all are so poorly Catechized, in your own or our faith, whichever you are trying to represent.
It surprised me to read in the article that this play may not be appropriate for children under the age of 14. In my opinion, to have something in a Church trying to promote high morals that a 5 year old should not see is really appalling. Not to mention, that as "faithful" as you can try to be, as long as you think that women can and should be priests, then your understanding of theology in the Catholic Church is clearly wanting.
It is not a matter of protecting G-d, because He is above all of these blasphemies. This is most definitely a matter of making sure that something that is heterodox to the teachings of the Church not be endorsed. It has already been said that Magdalene was not a priest, nor was she married to Jesus nor did she have carnal relations with Him. The sponsor of this play, who works at St. Augustine's, said in the article that this was a completely valid way to look at Church History. The Magysterium of the Church has said that this is clearly not so, so why promote it as such? Why host it in a Catholic Church.
Catholic Theology does not allow for dissent. It really doesn't. The minute that you think that abortion is ok, then you've just excommunicated yourself from the Body of Christ. The moment that you think that women should be priests and you actively pursue that outcome, you have denied the Truth of Catholicism. The second that you deny the true presence in the Eucharist, you cease to be a member of the Church. There is no room for dissent on issues of Faith and Morals, as taught by Our Holy Father and the Magysterium.
There are more than 30,000 denominations of "Christianity" that will gladly take your point of view, Anglicanism (not Anglo-Catholicism, as there is no such thing) is one of them. Why don't you check one of them out?
In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Anders
I think all of you are ridiculous with all of your rants and tirades. Jon, remaining faithful to the Church, was more than prepared to take the type of crap that you all are doling out. I think that the fact that he is 18 and knows Church teaching better than all of you is kind of eating at you... why else tear at someone because of their age? He is one of the most faithful Catholics that I have ever seen. If any of you knew what he had to do to become Catholic, you would sing a different tune as to his apparent lack of wisdom due to his age.
It pains me that you all are so poorly Catechized, in your own or our faith, whichever you are trying to represent.
It surprised me to read in the article that this play may not be appropriate for children under the age of 14. In my opinion, to have something in a Church trying to promote high morals that a 5 year old should not see is really appalling. Not to mention, that as "faithful" as you can try to be, as long as you think that women can and should be priests, then your understanding of theology in the Catholic Church is clearly wanting.
It is not a matter of protecting G-d, because He is above all of these blasphemies. This is most definitely a matter of making sure that something that is heterodox to the teachings of the Church not be endorsed. It has already been said that Magdalene was not a priest, nor was she married to Jesus nor did she have carnal relations with Him. The sponsor of this play, who works at St. Augustine's, said in the article that this was a completely valid way to look at Church History. The Magysterium of the Church has said that this is clearly not so, so why promote it as such? Why host it in a Catholic Church.
Catholic Theology does not allow for dissent. It really doesn't. The minute that you think that abortion is ok, then you've just excommunicated yourself from the Body of Christ. The moment that you think that women should be priests and you actively pursue that outcome, you have denied the Truth of Catholicism. The second that you deny the true presence in the Eucharist, you cease to be a member of the Church. There is no room for dissent on issues of Faith and Morals, as taught by Our Holy Father and the Magysterium.
There are more than 30,000 denominations of "Christianity" that will gladly take your point of view, Anglicanism (not Anglo-Catholicism, as there is no such thing) is one of them. Why don't you check one of them out?
In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Anders
L-rd give me strength!
10 comments:
Congratulations on your new blog, Anders.
By the way, I read your comment over at MadPriest's blog.
All three of them. (update: all four of them.)
As a community of many different faiths and points of view, OCICBW is typically wonderful and compassionate.
I don't think Jon knows church teaching better than all of us. He simply displays the sort of Orthodox intolerance most of us despise.
That and the fact that we all enjoy a good train wreck now and then.
Sometimes you just can't look away.
Why is it that Orthodoxy is considered intolerant? Why is it that intolerance of the intolerant is excepted and not views that might suggest that a person has moral values? Why is it that having morals is looked down upon now? Especially from fellow Christians? It makes no sense to me? Why would we want to lead the faithful astray by allowing such heresy to be displayed in a Church? Why would we show anything in a Church that wouldn't be appropriate for a child to watch? Why don't we just host a viewing of DOGMA or the Vagina Monologues? Because it's inappropriate.
It is inappropriate to have an actress ranting about her carnal lust for Our L-rd in a Church. That's all that was expressed. We have every right to demand Catholic teaching be taught in a Catholic Church. That's all we want.
Thanks for your input, by the way.
In general intellectual contexts, the terms "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" are commonly used in an unfavorable sense, similar to that associated with "dogma" and "dogmatic". The implication is that orthodox beliefs are not rationally justified but are imposed by some overseeing body, such as the dominant group in an academic discipline. For example, the term orthodox economics is commonly used by critics to refer to the dominant approach to economics, which its supporters would more commonly call mainstream economics. This is how I use the term.
It seems MP thinks you are not who you claim to be, but rather defending yourself (Jonathan Knox) in a guise. If you are Jonathan Knox, just be yourself and defend yourself. If not, well, don't worry about it.
The hypocrisy of it is the scheduling and then cancellation. Members of that particular parish must have wanted to see this play or it would not have been scheduled in the first place.
We hold events at our parish where children are not allowed. No event where alcohol is served, for instance, may be attended by children. Just because a five year old can't attend is no reason to cancel.
And... leading the faithful astray? Please. Dan Brown said of the Da Vinci Code, "It's just a novel." I would say, "It's just a play."
I can see from where you are coming, but the Mr. Rinkoski has been clear that this is a valid way of looking at Church history, when is has been decided not to be. That's my problem. My problem is that children cannot come to it because of the sexual theme and carnal lust after the Christ. That's my problem.
Rest assured, Jon would have no problem going on as himself to defend himself. He's not underhanded like that.
Hey Anders, it's Ashley D'Emo. I'm not trying to stir anything up, but I just wondered if you've read the entire play or seen the version of it this woman will be performing. I've had a hard time getting ahold of it myself, and I'm curious to see what all the controversy is about.
Jon has a copy of it. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to let you see it. It talks about Mary M. having carnal lust after Our L-rd, and then performing some sort of pseudo-Eucharistic prayer at the end. It's not good...
I'd love to read it. I won't be able to attend the play tonight and I won't form an opinion on it without knowing what it's about.
Welcome to the world of bloggery. I have a feeling Cliff Notes should devote a segment to this outrage.
I couldn't agree more Mr. Cliff Notes.
Post a Comment