Friday, September 28, 2018

Just Me, Mouthing Off About Crux and America and Large Investment of U.S. Catholic Intellectual Elites in Upholding Heterosexual Male Entitlement

I'm just an old poofter and what I have to say doesn't matter to anyone at all, but Jesum Pete: 

Does Crux really think no one can see the shoddy, unethical, unprofessional game the journal is playing posting articles like Elise Harris' "Vatican official reportedly pushed back on McCarrick career advances"? The article reports on claims that longtime Vatican bigwig Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re opposed the appointment of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as archbishop of D.C. in 2000, and that a handwritten note of Re's stating his opposition to the appointment of McCarrick — in 2000 — is on file in the Vatican.

Not once does the Crux report state who was pope in 2000.

Not once does the Crux report state who appointed McCarrick archbishop of D.C. in 2000.

Not once does the Crux report state who made McCarrick a cardinal in 2001.

The pope who took all those steps was Saint John Paul the Great.

Who is not even named in the Crux article.

The only pope named in the Crux article is Pope Francis. Whose name appears three times in the article….

While the name of the pope who made McCarrick archbishop of D.C. in 2000 and cardinal in 2001 — Saint John Paul the Great — is totally absent from the article.

I understand Crux's overweening need to pin the abuse crisis on "sexual deviants" (read: gay priests) like McCarrick.

But this article is not even journalism, as it draws a veil over the actions of that very bitterly anti-LGBTQ pope, John Paul II, who cracked down on gay folks in every way possible while appointing McCarrick archbishop of D.C. and then made him a cardinal.

Obviously, the gay crackdown didn't work when Saint John Paul the Great and his orthodoxy watchdog Cardinal Ratzinger implemented it — and the responsibility for that lies not at the feet of Francis but his predecessors. And why will the gay crackdown be a miracle cure now, one has to ask?

We can see through the veil, Crux. We see what you're doing. And we see Saint John Paul the Great right there behind the veil you want to draw over him as you lay the abuse crisis in the Catholic church at the feet of the sexually deviant gays.


More from the mouthy old queer man whose commentary counts for very little:

After Kavanaugh's eye-opening performance yesterday, the Jesuit magazine America withdrew its editorial support for his appointment.

Yes, you read that right: the leading U.S. Jesuit journal America had endorsed Kavanaugh prior to his performance yesterday.

The Jesuits, their ministry and educational institutions, are coming out of this whole Kavanaugh debacle with a very ugly — and seemingly well-earned — image (and here and here). Men for others and band of brothers, indeed!

It's way beyond time to subject the astonishing male entitlement of the whole Catholic clerical system to searching scrutiny — and to pull that rotten system down to the ground.

Maybe the folks who dominate the intellectual establishment of American Catholicism might want to rethink their frame for understanding the moral disarray of the U.S. Catholic church right now. Maybe they might want to stop looking obsessively at women and LGBTQ people seeking rights as the source of all problems in the world and start looking at astonishingly entitled heterosexual males as the serious threat to the moral well-being of just about anything, which  deserves much more attention at this point in history.

But to do this credibly, the Jesuits and the clerical club in general would, of course, have to do some searching scrutiny of its own commitment to the values that govern the lives of elite, entitled heterosexual males, wouldn't they?

No comments: