Those Whacky, Madcap Catholics at it Again…

7 Jan

Thanks to my friend Jay for referring this story to me.  Those fun loving Catholics that brought you the Inquisition (just tough love for protestants), now are forbidding the existence of Gay/Straight Alliances.  The ever charm free, Alice Anne LeMay, the board chair of a Catholic School District in Canada, responded: “We don’t have Nazi groups either.”  Well, hmm.  I guess given that the current Pope is a card carrying Nazi, they should in deed recognize what a Nazi looks like.  But golly gosh, dag gum it, gee wiz, darn it all–I think our Alice may be a might confused here.

Dear audience, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Nazis kill gays and Jews?  While I know both the Jews and gays can often times be critical of fashion, but I just don’t think we are the same as Nazis.  Silly me.  Here I am accusing this Catholic School district of just plain bigotry/homophobia.  That is just like the Southern Poverty Law Center calling the Family Research Council a bunch of haters.  Click  here to see the full article.

Another Face of Evil

26 Responses to “Those Whacky, Madcap Catholics at it Again…”

  1. Jennifer January 7, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Yes, clearly Nazi’s (a group hellbent on violent genocide) and gays (those engaging in consenting, adult relationships) are exactly the same. How do you not see it Michael? They’re practically mirror images.

  2. michaeleriksson January 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    The Pope is by no means a card-carrying Nazi. To quote from Wikipedia:

    Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[9] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[10] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith.

    ( )

  3. michaeleriksson January 7, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Even if someone makes anti-X edicts, that does not automatically make him a Nazi. Raising taxes does not make a US president a communist, for that matter.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 8, 2011 at 6:04 am #

      I’m sorry that you completely missed the entire point of the original post. Your defense of the Pope and segue of comparing raising taxes and communism and the US president are rather confusing.

      • michaeleriksson January 8, 2011 at 11:39 am #

        It seems rather that you miss the point of my commment: There is no indication that Pope is now or has ever been a Nazi. If you dislike and want to criticize him or his action, use factual arguments—not unwarranted and irrelevant accusations. (In particular, accusations that many victims of WWII or the Holocaust could see as offensive for trivializing their experiences. Your complaint about a possible gay–nazi comparison becomes very hypocritical in this light.)

  4. Jennifer January 8, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    One need not even look so far into his past, to his childhood in the Hitler Youth, and need only look at his active involvement in hurting children in the 90s and 00, when (then) Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of dealing with priests accused/convicted of sex with minors. He chose to move them around, hush up families, blame the victims (helpless children), and enable perpetrators to offend multiple times.
    I guess I’m more in line with the sentiment that there are two types of people in the world: those who find child molestation horrifying, revolting, disgusting, disturbing, unforgivable, etc, and those who do it.
    So perhaps the Catholic League should focus more on eliminating the soul killing of children via molestation instead of attacking consenting adults – who are hurting no one.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 8, 2011 at 10:31 am #

      Very eloquent response, Jen. I’m profoundly disturbed how any human could defend this pope.

  5. webwordwarrior January 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Mr. Eriksson – the other commenters have been very patient with you. Why do you insist on playing these silly word games? The man may or may not have been a literal Nazi. (Given how many new revelations and records keep emerging from that regime, I think it’s safe to say we’ll never know.) Whatever the case, his actions since becoming a well-known Cardinal are so anti-human (child, woman, gay, Muslim, take your pick) that he’s at least Nazi-like. The metaphor may be strong, perhaps even incendiary, but his abuse of power to oppress deserves no better.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

      Wow! Well said.

    • Jennifer January 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

      Thanks webwarrior. Brilliant eloquent.

    • michaeleriksson January 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

      With all due respect, your claims that I would be playing word games when I rectify a repeated and unfounded accusation (I note that the “Hitler Jugend” connection has often been used to imply a very literal “the Pope is a Nazi”) and that the other commenters have been patient (after three brief and factual comments from me, all entirely justified) borders on the ridiculous.

      As for what the Pope has or has not done since, I cannot speak with authority—I tend to leave religious issues to those who actually are religious. However, none of it is on par with starting a global war or the Holocaust; nor is there any justification in making an ideological association. (Further, AFAIK, most or all of it has been basically re-affirming the previous position of the Catholic Church.)

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

        Those of us being targeted by the Pope don’t have the luxury of not paying attention to him, as you seem to have. With all due respect, you speak as though you come from the privilege of being white, male, and heterosexual. If this is indeed correct, you are the power structure of the world.

  6. webwordwarrior January 23, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    Surprise! Mr. Eriksson wrote a post about this comment thread, calling us “absurd debaters.” He didn’t have the courtesy to share the link to his words, so here it is. He continues to obsess over a minor point of debatable fact rather than appreciate the valid content of this post. I wrote a rebuttal of his post which awaits moderation. If you are interested in seeing it pending his approval (which I suppose may never come), let me know.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

      Lex, how funny. I just heard from another follower of the blog that just told me of a similar experience. I may have to do a story on these hypocrites. Yes, please do keep me posted. I shall take a look at his post. Thanks for sharing the link.

  7. webwordwarrior January 23, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Here’s my reply. Sorry it’s so long, but I wanted to take him on point by point. It might as well live here to round out the whole story.

    Mr. Eriksson,

    Imagine my surprise at finding myself quoted on your blog as a result of a spirited discussion that took place on another site. Please excuse my presumption, but I feel obligated to disagree with you once again.

    You express great concern about the over-reaching of political correctness in current-day debate. Having re-read the original post and the thread of comments in which you participated, I stand by my comments that day and wonder at your sidelining the original topic.

    The use of the term Nazi to describe the Pope can certainly be read as metaphorical. It is truly unfortunate that Ratzinger’s biographical overlap with the HitlerJugend results in a confusing conflation of terms which is abused by some writers. In this case, however, there are three important, mitigating points.

    First, the Nazi analogy was made by Ms. LeMay, who is the primary subject of the post in question. This framework sets up the metaphor.

    Next, the second paragraph of the post deconstructs Ms. LeMay’s analogy, further strengthening the sense of Nazi as metaphor.

    Third, in the comment thread, the writer of the post makes it clear that he refers to the Pope as a Nazi on the basis of his behavior. Liturgical or otherwise, Pope Benedict has expressed a clear desire to see homosexuality stamped out. Hitler did the same. The metaphor stands.

    At the end of your post, you make a statement that I think brings you into the realm of “absurd debater.” Your claim that being white, male, and heterosexual carries no privilege is shockingly blind. In the United States (where the original post was written), women and minorities make routinely smaller wages for similar work. Leadership positions are disproportianately held by white men. Based on my limited research, the same is true throughout the Western Hemisphere. (Hispanic is an ethnic distinction, not a racial one, so your Mexico analogy fails.)

    You also question the Pope’s influence on two fronts. First, that we can only be concerned with how he changes the position of the Church. I firmly disagree. He is the unquestioned leader of the Church and has the authority to undo the great wrongs done to the gay community. He chooses not to do so. Second, the Catholic church was a major financial contributor to Proposition 8 in California, a measure that destroyed marriage equality in that state. The influence of the church was keenly felt by millions of gay Americans in that regard.

    Please take greater care not to let an obsession with a single fact overcome your ability to interpret an entire post in context. Please be more aware of your privilege and the comfort you derive therefrom.

    Lex (webwordwarrior) Kahn

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

      I could not have come up with a better response. You were quite respectful but also pointed out the many flaws of Mr. Eriksson’s argument. I think one of the things that galled me the most was his complete denial of the privilege he holds has a white heterosexual man and to presume that women and gays play on a level playing field is insulting and make him appear to be an isolationist that has no idea of the real world. Bravo, to you Lex.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm #

      One more thing to note: I just looked at Mr. Eriksson’s blog and noticed he did not post your response, as of yet. It will be interesting to see if he does allow your comment. If he does not, he has shown himself as the hypocrite I hope he is not.

  8. michaeleriksson January 23, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    I have replied to webwordwarrior’s poorly reasoned comment on my blog. Here I merely take the opportunity to distance myself from completely unnecessary and, considering the time frame, unjustifiable complaints about his comment still being in moderation and the ensuing speculations.

    • michaeleriksson January 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

      … and: You should have received an automatic ping back when I published my post. If you did not, then you should complain to WordPress, not to/about me.

      • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

        I never received anything from wordpress. Rest assured. I have no complaints, only pity.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

      Yes, I understand you Mr. Eriksson. Having a mirror held up to you must be quite difficult.

  9. webwordwarrior January 23, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    I lost it. This @$$hole finally pushed me over the edge. How dare he presume that we have to burn people before we care. Visit his blog if you want to see where he’s willing to go. My response, FWIW:
    Forgive my tone but you are a flaming jackass. We have to wait for people to be shoved into gas chambers to consider someone’s behavior to be unacceptable?!?! My family burned in WWII. How dare you protect someone who takes the first steps down that road? I’m done with you and your absurdly academic defense of abject hatred.

    • Michael Hulshof-Schmidt January 23, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

      Mr. Eriksson,
      I was hoping not to play this card, but you have forced my hand here. As someone who lost most of my family in the Holocaust, I can certainly point my finger at YOU as one of the academic Weimar Republicans that allowed the Nazis to trample Europe and burn MY family. I have no other use for you here, save that you offer an apology. You show the true presumption and privilege of a white heterosexual man in his ivory tower.
      Yours in contempt,
      The Jew

  10. michaeleriksson January 24, 2011 at 5:30 am #

    The further rude, flawed in reason, and distorting comments left by Michael Hulshof-Schmidt and webwordwarrior have been addressed on my blog.

    Your hateful and prejudiced view of others, I let speak for it self.

    I will now unsubscribe from comments and sincerely hope never to hear from any of you again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: