Monday, June 2, 2014


Basically, the Rev. Dr. Godsey, a Baptist Minister/Preacher has implied that Pope Francis is a bigot, prejudice and hate monger for this statement he made a few years back:

What could have been a good article and conciliatory turns into a very transparent anti-Catholic diatribe by a highly respected member of the Baptist clergy and chancellor of Mercer University who desires to change the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality and marriage, which he calls bigoted. But he goes beyond that to lobby for changing the Catholic Church's teaching on who gets ordained priests. This is stunning from the perspective of ecumenism and respecting the legitimate differences that various ecclesial communities bring to the table. His diatribe is one of the main reasons that ecumenism on so many levels and worldwide is dead in the water and currently just about tea and crumpets, occasional  prayer services and receptions (which I like by the way, it is better than nothing) and striving to work together to help the poor in a variety of ecumenical and interfaith endeavors, Daybreak in Macon a good example.

He also quotes out of context Pope Francis' now infamous "Who am I to judge" completely oblivious to its context. He either does this intentionally to promote his own agenda against Catholic teaching and maliciously using the Pope to do it or he has not done his homework in discovering the context. In either case it is unacceptable for an academic to do this. He must do his homework. Need I remind the Rev. Dr. Godsey that just yesterday, Sunday, the same day as this editorial appeared, Pope Francis speaking to more than 50,000 charismatic Catholics at Rome's soccer stadium said that it is the devil who is working against the traditional marriage, sexuality and  family and trying to destroy it. He said this in the context of traditional marriage, one man and one woman, where children are born of this natural and complimentary union and who need both a mother and a father. The devil, he said, is working against this because he knows that the traditional family is the Church in miniature.

I reprint this editorial printed in the Macon Telegraph on Sunday. Comments that make personal attacks on the author will not be printed, but I would like to see thoughtful comments supporting the Catholic Church's infallible teachings on sex, marriage, right to life of the unborn, artificial contraception, and the nature of the Catholic Church and the priesthood (Church as bride, Christ as bridegroom and the sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders as visible signs of this spiritual reality). My comments are in RED in the body of Rev. Dr. Godsey's editorial below:

GODSEY: Bigotry, prejudice and grace

Special to The TelegraphJune 1, 2014 

Read more here:

Religion has been a source of great human good in our world. Families have been strengthened. Scores of men and women have been educated. Whole societies have advanced because of the light of learning and discovery that has been disseminated.

Even so, we have to face up to the dark side of religion as well. Atrocities have been committed, violent and deadly religious crusades have been spawned, prejudice and hostility have been defended all in the name of God. So, while noble religious initiatives have been inspired, cruel and demeaning religious abuses continue to take place. It turns out that churches and religious assemblies are, after all, human institutions that have the capacity to bring hope, but, from time to time, become champions of hurt. They, and consequently the institutions they foster, become victims of religious prejudice and find themselves justifying wrong-hearted and wrong-headed behaviors by covering them with a mantle of faithful devotion. (My comment: I might remind Rev. Dr. Godsey that secular, political  ideologies such as fascism and communism have slaughtered more people in the 20th century than any negative results of religious practice has over the past 20 centuries. The Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality contained in Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae that also upheld the Church's teaching that artificial contraception goes against natural law, if followed by Catholics and others of good will would have protected marriage, the family and the health of human beings by curtailing sexually transmitted diseases some of which have led to the deaths of scores of men and women. As it stands and as Pope Paul VI prophetically predicted in 1968, women are disrespected, used and promoted as sex objects more so than ever, (and now men are as well) divorce is rampant, family life is destroyed, people have died from the promiscuous use of sex disconnected from natural law, love, family and life.)

When it comes to overcoming prejudice and discrimination, the secular culture often races ahead of the religious culture. In our own land, the church had to confess belatedly to its own sins with respect to slavery. The church was among the last and the loudest voices heard in defense of segregation, only later to have to kneel in shame. Now, the church battles within itself and with civil society concerning the treatment of gays and lesbians and the distinctions between the social and religious definitions of marriage. I suspect that in the distant days ahead, the church will have to struggle again to reorder its doctrines and apologize for its mistakes.

It is an odd, even uncomfortable, reality when the secular culture has to reintroduce our religious assemblies to the ways of grace. It is not surprising, therefore, that fewer and fewer people take religion seriously. While we understand that church doctrine is clear and that the bishops of the church have the right and the authority to act without regard to the sensibilities of the communities they serve, we also understand that whenever their actions place doctrine above people, they face the prospect of having turned good religion into bad. (I might remind Rev. Dr. Godsey that liberalism in the mainline Protestant denominations has emptied those churches, First Baptist Church in Macon a primary example when compared to the more conservative Baptist Churches in Macon such as Ingleside Baptist and Mable White Baptist, the two most conservative and thriving, booming Baptist Churches in Macon. Liberalism has been the death knell for the Anglican Communion, its Episcopal Branch in the USA on life support fueled only by the extremely wealthy in that denomination. The same has happened in the Catholic Church, liberalization has emptied our seminaries, religious orders and churches over the past 50 years. Only those orthodox and conservative orders and seminaries are doing well and orthodox and conservative candidates joining. The problem Rev. Dr. Godsey is your ideology that is destroying once strong and faithful Protestant denominations).

With clear eyes, we should see that when we hurt or injure in the name of earnest belief and protecting the religious order, we are missing the mark of radical grace that Jesus embodied. Jesus said that we should love God and one another without condition. “Do this and you shall live,” he said. Perhaps the grace of loving without condition should trump following church doctrine without condition. (The implied case that Rev. Dr. Godsey refers only tells part of the story. We can certainly improve the manner in which people are dismissed from their positions in religious institutions, and clarify our contracts and employment policies when these become outdated because of new situations in secular society, but make no mistake, people are dismissed from their paying jobs in religious institutions every year, including Mercer University and often for reasons much less serious than undermining the mission of the school with political and social ideologies that are opposed to their mission. Most who are dismissed have serious grievances but do not make this public or go to the press with their grievances and normally if there is any breach of civil law, settlements by law are confidential and no one can comment. It was not any Catholic institution or person in Macon that made the dismissal of one of its employees public it was the employee himself.)

Our willingness to act with grace becomes betrayed by fear -- the fear that God will not approve of us unless we believe the right things, the fear that unless we abide by the rules of the church we will be unacceptable, the fear that unless we believe the Bible is literally true or that church doctrine is infallibly right, we might land in the grips of an angry God.

Fear is all that it takes to fuel bigotry and hateful prejudice. And there is no bigotry quite so virulent or unforgiving as religious bigotry. Bigotry is a wrong that can be righted, even though our first human reaction is to defend, without quarter, the prevailing religious mores and the established church doctrines. Only years later are we likely to discern that our aggressive defensiveness was on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of grace. ( I might remind the Rev. Dr. Godsey that fear of God is not what is at stake here but the tyranny of political ideologies, the dictatorship of relativism and the fear these forces in the elite news and entertainment media and leftist political ideologues use to instill fear in rank and file conservative Christians to keep quiet if they can't or won't conform to these ideologies. What you are doing in this article is reminding all who have orthodox beliefs about marriage and sexuality to keep quiet or else you will get nuked by being called a bigot, prejudiced hate monger and out of step with secular ideologies that know better than stupid Christians who hold tight to their beliefs and the evangelization of the world with these. Let me tell you that your name calling might work to keep some of us quiet out of fear of being labeled wrongly by you as a bigot, but it doesn't work with this Catholic priest. And yes I fear God more than the censure coming from your ideological position.)

I am confident, however, that bigotry and hatred and abuse ( If you are referring to faithful Catholics and Christians and Jews of goodwill, striving to uphold the mission of their educational institutions, you are extremely judgmental and very mistaken) will not be the last word. All of us are on a human journey that began thousands of years ago, a journey of learning to live with more civility, more respect, to live with more grace toward one another without regard for life conditions or religious beliefs or personal histories.

Sometimes the church helps us move forward. Sometimes our actions in the name of belief set us back. Our progress is not steady or even. Overcoming prejudice remains a long and uphill battle and climbing out of the valley of religious prejudice always requires courage. There are glimmers of change, even signs of courage, in our established religious traditions, including the Roman Catholic Church. When asked about gays in the church, Pope Francis replied, “Who am I to judge?” The shepherds of the corporate church were quick to try to “walk back” the pope’s stunning words. Even when we least expect it, the light can dawn even in the church. We can learn to embrace one another regardless of race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. (Just as fundamentalist Protestants striving to proselytize Catholics quote Scripture out of context to prove that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" to us Catholics, so too do those who oppose the Catholic Church's teachings on sex, marriage, the right to life, quote Pope Francis out of context to make their points to proselytize  Catholics to their ideological agenda that Pope Francis doesn't care about the Church's teachings on sexuality or marriage or the right to life if it impinges on the me-generation's agenda about fierce individualism and personal fulfillment to the detriment of the common good. This is the context of Pope Francis much abused "Who am I to judge" comment: So, what did the Pope say? In the context of his larger remarks on homosexuality and the priesthood, Francis was attempting to explain that a homosexual “lobby” within his church is entirely unacceptable. The Vatican has been reeling from a report issued under Pope Benedict XVI that identified a “gay lobby” with inordinate power and influence within the church. Francis told the reporters that he saw gay individuals as distinct from a gay lobby. “I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good. They are bad.”

We can learn to embrace one another, sinner and saint alike. We can learn to be open to the blessings of the Holy Eucharist served by both men and women priests. For ours is not to judge. Ours is to live with outrageous grace. (Rev. Dr. Godsey, please don't be hypocritical! You have judged the Catholic Church and those of us who believe and uphold what the Church teaches. You have judged us bigots, prejudice and hate mongers. And in doing so you are bullying us with your version of hellfire and damnation, social shunning. Who are you trying to kid?)

Grace will ultimately prevail. Only courage will determine whether its prevailing will occur in the stewardship of our time or a time yet to come.

R. Kirby Godsey is the chancellor of Mercer University.(also an ordained Southern Baptist Preacher)

Read more here:


Gene said...

I read that stupid Godsey article this morning and started to mention it. When Godsey came to Mercer, he followed Rufus Harris, a true gentleman, scholar, educator, and ambassador for Mercer. Many of the faculty and students were dismayed by the choice of Godsey…an intellectual lightweight, business-model administrator, and bureaucrat. He should hardly be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

What I have never understood is why people get so upset with the teachings of the Church. If they don't like them or agree with them then join a church that teaches what you believe.

This attitude of liberal people being 100% intolerant of those who do not agree with them may be ridiculous to rational people but now it's getting dangerous. Laws are being enacted towards those who do not agree with the liberal agenda. The next step for those who don't adhere is persecution.

As far as the Church is concerned the coming persecution will be swift and severe. The majority of Catholics don't believe in the Faith anymore because the pastors have been negligent, so the attacks will be easy. And now that we have a Pope who speaks carelessly and causes confusion the secular world sees this as the perfect time to attack. He gives no indication of defending the teachings of the Church. The barque of Peter has been abandoned in this storm. This may be a good thing because it forces us to be on our knees and trust only in Christ.

And the attacks against Holy Mother Church are just starting. How long before the Church is forced to acknowledge and validate "gay marriages"? How many bishops and priests will deny Christ and go along and how many will face the consequences for standing up to evil?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Your otherwise spot on comments is marred by you taking Pope Francis out of context as the liberal press does and Dr. Godsey does. Read what the Pope says in context and over the course of time. Don't cherry pick comments that the press highlight to discredit this pope all the while hypocritically looking like they praise him. He knows what they are doing and you should too. You are wrong in maligning the Pope and in doing so maligning the papacy and you play into the hands of liberal elites who want this to happen and have been successful with you.

Gene said...

…3…2…1…waiting for Anon 2 to trip over stuff running to Godsey's defense…LOL!

rcg said...

Take a breath. Compose a reply, post here for comment and review then send it in. Geodesy makes more than a few historical errors and paints with a broad brush. And before we get our panties in a twist does anyone know what Baptist doctrine or belief is concerning homosexuals?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Baptist have individual infallibility when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Godsey's personal infallibility fits a vocal minority in the Baptist tradition but thankfully diluted because of their fierce individualism and congregationalism.

Anonymous said...

"You are wrong in maligning the Pope and in doing so maligning the papacy and you play into the hands of liberal elites who want this to happen and have been successful with you."

How am I maligning the pope? He says what he says and he does what he does. Francis covered up his pectoral cross when meeting with Jews, I didn't he did. Francis kissed the hands of a priest who is promoting homosexual behavior, Francis did that, I didn't do it. And he was wrong in both cases. That's not maligning anyone, it's stating facts. And Francis is not God and he is not above correction when he is wrong. And he is wrong a lot.

Instead of trying to destroy a faithful order of nuns, like the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, Francis might consider trying to convert his friend the pro abortion, pro gay marriage rabbi who accompanied him to Israel. Or maybe he should reform his On my way! Jesuit order which has caused so many of the problems in the Church today.

qwikness said...

Godsey seems to be all over the place when talking about the abuses of the "church," which is like a moving target. 'The "church" was last against slavery,' wasn't the northeastern protestants fighting that fight first? 'The "church" was last against segregation,' wasn't MLK a Baptist preacher, I saw a lot of Roman collars in those marches. Most of the segregationists were of his own Southern Baptist Church.

JBS said...

"We must love and serve the Church as it is, wisely seeking to understand its history and to discover with humility the will of God who guides and assists it... We must strengthen these convictions in ourselves if we are also to avoid [the danger of those] who think that the reform of the Church should consist principally in adapting its way of thinking and acting to the customs and temper of the modern secular world." Paul VI, "Ecclesiam Suam", 47&48.

JBS said...


The Cross is "unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock", so that a good pastor might see fit to cultivate friendships before presenting this frightening reality. It is a matter of tactics, and Pope Francis is very much a man of tactics. If one wishes to persuade a despairing man away from a ledge, one does so gently and with great deliberation. Those outside the Church are on ledges. This is why Pope Francis clearly described Church teaching on marriage and human life to his rabbi friend (read the book).

Anonymous said...

What is Pater Ignotus' thoughts???

rcg said...

Individual infallibility? Then there is no counter- point. You really should compose a very short and clear statement setting out the facts of Church teaching and the context of Pope Francis' comment. Have someone review it so it does not come across as spin control.

Then just move on.

It seems likely this fellow is simply a partisan making an opportunistic attack on the Church. You should be able to indirectly deflate him fairly easily.

Anonymous 2 said...


Dr. Godsey makes some good points, and he also makes some bad points. While I might have one or two quibbles, Father McDonald makes some excellent points in rebuttal. I notice, too, that he chooses his words here very carefully.

Dr. Godsey’s article underscores yet again the need for dialogue to seek common ground and improve mutual understanding. Mercer did hold a forum on same sex marriage a year or so ago, in which Father Dawid participated. I do not know if Dr. Godsey attended. Indeed, I knew nothing about the forum until after the event (only learning about it from reading Father McDonald’s report on this Blog). A targeted announcement never made it through to the Law School. Believe me if it had, I would have been there.

So, sorry to disappoint! Well, I am not sorry, actually. I hope that I will continue to complicate your labels and disappoint your unwarranted expectations. =)

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

I have been searching for the text of Pope Francis’s May 31 address on the family but cannot find it. All I find is a short AP report. Do you have something more you can share with us?

However, I did come across this statement by Pope Francis on social media released by the Vatican yesterday, World Communications Day. It seems most pertinent to the current discussion and indeed many discussions on this Blog and elsewhere. I find much support for my own approach in this document (an approach that one regular contributor characterized as “mealy-mouthed”) and for my suggestion that we should all try to get behind Pope Francis in his approach to evangelization. I hope everyone will read it:

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

This is the pope's morning homily:

This was Francis’ message at this morning’s mass in St. Martha’s House which was attended by couples who have reached 25, 50 or 60 years of marriage: Married couples that do not want children get to old age with the bitterness of ugly solitude

There were about fifteen couples who have been married for 25, 50 or 60 years at this morning’s mass in St. Martha’s House. Addressing them specifically, Francis listed the characteristics of an authentic married life: “faithful, persevering and fertile.” Francis criticized marriages that are sterile out of choice, because they favour economic well-being, Asia News reports.

A married couple’s love needs to be faithful, persevering and fertile, the Pope said, inspired by God’s love for his Church. “This fidelity is like a light on marriage. The fidelity of love. Always. Always faithful, but also tireless in perseverance. Just like the love of Jesus for His Bride. "Married life must be persevering, it must be persevering. Because otherwise love cannot move forward. Perseverance in love, in good times and in difficult times, when there are problems: problems with children, economic problems, problems here and problems there. But love perseveres, it pushes onwards, always trying to work things out, to save the family. Persevering: the get up every morning, the man and the woman, and carry their family forward,” Francis said.

“In a marriage this fertility can sometimes be put to the test when the children do not arrive, or are sick. Faced with these tests, the Pope said, there are couples who "look to Jesus for the power of fertility that He has with His Church". “While on the other hand,” Francis reflected, “there are things that Jesus does not like", or marriages that are sterile by choice.” "These marriages that do not want children, that want to remain without fecundity. This culture of well-being of ten years ago convinced us, 'It's better not to have children! It's better! So you can go out and discover the world , on holiday , you can have a villa in the countryside, you have no worries ' ... But it is perhaps better - more comfortable - to have a dog, two cats , and your love goes to two cats and the dog. This is true, is it not? Have you seen this? And in the end this marriage arrives at an old age of solitude, with the bitterness of ugly solitude. It is not fertile, it does not do what Jesus does with his Church: He makes it fertile.”

Anonymous said...

Sexuality is about the 9th position in the list. To the short of it, the SBC is opposed to homosexual lifestyles, so called marriage. It is still taught as sin, though not unforgivable.

Godsey is not preaching the Baptist line.

But as Fr. McDonald has pointed out, each baptist chooses what to believe. When I was a baptist back in the early 1990's I do remember two churches in the SBC being de-fellowshipped, one IIRC was in Auburn, Alabama, for actively opposing the SBC sexual position.

Somebody needs to contact Al Mohler of Southern Seminary and Fred Luter the SBC Presidents. Both are 100% opposed to what Godsey has uttered.


Anonymous 2 said...


It would be old news. The Georgia Baptist Convention severed its ties with Mercer in 2006. In the Mercer University Press book The Baptist Summit you can read about the troubled history between Mercer and the Georgia Baptist Convention after the so-called conservatives/fundamentalists gained control of the Southern Baptist Convention from the so-called moderates/liberals in the mid-1980s. As you can read in the book excerpt in the link below, although the trigger issue for Mercer’s severance seems to have been when a Mercer student organization sponsored an on-campus forum to discuss LGBT issues in 2005, the break was a long time in the making.

Mercer is not alone in all this. For a broader perspective, putting the Mercer situation in a national context that has seen the severance of ties between several Baptist colleges and the Southern Baptist Convention, see the following 2006 report in the New York Times:

This article suggests that the SBC position document in the link you give does not tell the whole story. Thus the NYT article contains the following list of issues that have caused tension:

“The issues vary from state to state. But many Southern Baptist colleges and their state conventions have been battling over money, control of boards of trustees, whether the Bible must be interpreted literally, how evolution is taught, the propriety of some books for college courses and of some plays for campus performances and whether cultural and religious diversity should be encouraged.”

I am not making an evaluation here, just trying to provide some contextual information.

Anonymous said...

SOUTHERN Baptist Convention.....SOUTHERN Orders.

Duck Dynasty....Honey Boo Boo....Redneck Olympics....

Being southern can have some embarrassing moments.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Wow, you must be a northerner and have no ecumenical sensitives to the largest Baptist denomination in the country. Rather stunning I'd say.

Anonymous said...

Wrong on both counts. It's possible to be a southerner and not be a cracker.

Catholic said...

So we can use racial slurs with impunity here now... That'll make things more interesting.

Anonymous said...

I guess that sometimes some black folks probably use "cracker" somewhat like some white folks use the "n" word. (I'm a white folk.)

Back in my day, however it was pretty common for one white (Georgia) guy to refer, in a pejorative manner, to another guy as a (Georgia) "cracker". It meant crude, uncouth, ill-mannered etc... Not a racial thing

Anonymous said...

In Savannah it was (perhaps still is among some senior folks) very widely accepted that a "cracker" was anybody who was not a Roman Catholic.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the link to a July 26, 2006 NYT article. Somewhat dated and one sided.

Now let me say first, I am a former SBC minister. As a teenager I watched my Grandfather, a SBC minister for 57 years, fight the fight between orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy in the SBC. Lead by Adrian Rodgers orthodoxy won. But the non-orthodox were in the schools and the SBC suffers much in the way the Catholic Church suffers with its colleges and parish schools. Father McDonald's current situation is a reminder.

Old news is the 2006 article. Al Mohler has in 2011 reviewed Godsey latest book Is God a Christian.

A link to Mohlers review

Understand Mohler gives an SBC review, not one based on Catholic teaching. In this and Godsey other books, Godsey attempts to redefine christianity and attacks the unique position that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.

I failed to see that Godsey is in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. A group that left the SBC after their defeat for control of the convention. I assumed he was SBC and orthodox. I was mistaken and offer my apologies to the forum.

The final straw for the Georgia Baptist Convention was Mercer holding a coming out celebration for homosexual activity on its campus. Godsey, like most non-orthodox who are trying to change Christianity and the gospel used the term Academic Freedom. A catch phrase used to introduce, teach and adopt positions counter to the Gospel once received.

And yes the link to the baptist position papers is the center of the issue. The 10 positions outlined include such things as homosexuality, creation/evolution, marriage and other social, moral and spiritual issues the non-orthodox seek to change.

Mercer violated position 9 in regards to homosexuality. That caused the break. Godsey tried to stop the break, but the GA Baptist Convention walked away as it was deemed Mercer had abandoned the faith.

For clarification, I am no longer Baptist. I am now an Anglican Priest, and no not in the Episcopal Church. My Baptist seminary was New Orleans Baptist Theology (Godsey and Clark Pinnock are also alumni). My Anglican Bishop sent me to the closes catholic college for a Masters in theology to purge me of my calvinism.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mark, thank you for your comment. In some ways what Godsey's is promoting is similar to the LCWR group of nuns the Vatican is investigating. Godsey' seems to be a part of liberal Protestantism moving quickly toward Unitarian inclusiveness and modern forms of Gnosticism.

Anonymous said...

What are the chances of organizing 'prayer breakfasts' in Macon wherein to invite the key social players to talk about these issues over waffles and coffee, directly with each other vs. each side preaching to the choir?

Secondly, how ready are both sides to get down to their brass tack fundamental premises with respect to the definition of what constitutes "health" and how we can know it objectively?

I ask because the entire gay agenda is premised on the 1973 APA's decision to "de-list" SSA from their DSM-3 as an emotional, psychological disorder.

In a nutshell the decision was political, not the end result of some overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence, studies, etc.

If your premise is that SSA (and all subsequent ideations, actions, etc.) are and must be held to be "scientifically proven" to be "healthy"....then certain moral "therefores" will follow.

If "science" declares X to be OK, who are we to judge it "OK but bad"?

As it is, the premise of almost all the Godsey's and Catholic counterparts is based on the APA's reasoning. Take that apart and their moral case collapses along with it because one could not have a moral right to engage in activity that is objectively harmful.

Try arguing that a person has a moral right to smoke tobacco or become an alcoholic or addict to some other pleasant substance...

What I've found is that few on either side is prepared to talk intelligently about the premise of the entire debate! Very few people have actually read Dr. Spitzer's white paper. Or reviewed the biographies of the majority of the taskforce (they were all gay activists, not unbiased observers). Very few people have read the minutes of the previous year's meetings....

But when you do, and you just start looking at the phenomenon with unbiased eyes as any other condition in the DSM, you'll discover far more "scientific" proof that SSA is a disorder than that it's not.

If you look at the longitudinal studies since then, you'll discover far more evidence that SSA itself accounts for most of the negative ideations, self-abuse, turmoil, depression, etc. than the hypothesis of "homophobia".

We all want to be nice and good people. Most of us want to do good to others. So if we presume SSA is "proven healthy", we'll look for solutions to their problems everywhere but at the source. Homophobia cannot explain the continued high elevations of suicide, depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, narcissism, explosive tempers, etc. found in the population. If we love them, if we desire to help them, then the status quo of presuming they're perfectly healthy and it's "society" that's not will not and cannot lead to their long term good.

Catholicism strikes the proper balance; a disorder of appetites and emotion is not itself a sin. People with all other types of disorders (depression, eating issues, addictions, etc.) ought to be treated with kindness, love, etc. but pandering to or increasing the disorder as though harmless would not be a kind thing to do.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk. It's very unpleasant to take their keys away but often times it's necessary for their own good. So too with our brothers and sisters dealing with SSA - it's not pleasant to seek to help them control their ideations and seek chastity, but it's the only intellectually and spiritually consistent thing to do if we want to be both grounded in the facts and our faith.

Anonymous said...

Words have meanings. To shoe-horn novel meanings into them or create new definitions is to equivocate and add to the confusion, not communicate a clearer truth.

So calling anyone who disagrees with Obama on any topic "a racist" does not illuminate but obscures reality (after all just recently the Unions disagreed with the EPA regs on coal fired power plants. I don't think we could claim Richard Trumpka is a racist suddenly).

Calling someone "a bigot" who shows "hatred" for people is not something we ought to take sitting down.

I for one would demand Godsey to prove his charges. Specifically, define what a bigot is. Is it not a person who rejects available information and rushes to judgment?

And what is the definition of hatred? Is it not to desire evil or harm to come to another creature?

Can the Church be convicted on these charges? I don't think so inasmuch as the Church knows far more about anthropology and psychology - the facts of the matter with respect to SSA and the lgbtq phenomena than the secular press does much less various partisans on blogs.

So the Church is coming from a far more well read and factual basis than the secular world is. If anyone is the bigot it's those rushing to judgment against Catholicism.

As for hatred.... how is distinguishing a man from his sexual behavior a matter of hate? Or how is it hateful to require congruence between private and public spheres of life? How is the Church's teaching of human sexuality a matter of wishing harm to come to others?

On the one side, the sexual revolution has led to tens of millions of deaths due to STDs, cancers, AIDS, domestic violence, divorce, child abuse and abandonment.... and on the Church's side, promoting chastity and fidelity and seeing that friendship need not be erotic to be genuine and profound has killed no one.

If the standard definitions of bigotry and hatred can be dispensed with by one side to 'score a point' then it won't be long before both sides start to equivocate and we'll all descend into a Babel conflict that serves no one.

Desiree said...

The politically correct term for "cracker" is Saltine American.

George said...

We all need to research and read on
the side of the SSA issue you write about above. It's the part we rarely see or read anything about in the media.


Saltine American. I like that. I'll have to remember that.

Pater Ignotus said...

I grew up in Savannah. In my experience, "cracker" was never used to refer to a non-Catholic.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I grew up in Augusta although I am not a southerner by ancestry. I heard it used by my friends who were not southerners referring to southerners as crackers, meaning narrow mind, red neck, and not exposed to anything but southern thought. Catholics could refer to Bible Belt Protestants with this term, but not southern Catholics, those of us from elsewhere.

Gene said...

This is hilarious…I wonder if we might have the same discussion regarding the racial slur "n*gger?' You'd all be falling over backwards to apologize, condemn the person who mentioned it, and act all PC. But, cracker is just fine. LOL!

George said...

I've heard the term used in a humorously self-deprecating way.
It is a term given some of its connotations some wouldn't want to be characterized by. It is a pejorative term in one sense of its usage. Some of us take it in stride and so find humor when hearing something like "Saltine American".
It has been used to refer to residents of Georgia and Florida in general. There are those who have used it as a synonym for racist and that is where the problem with the term comes in.
This reminds me of something many years ago where some people I knew
had been to a party where some northerners were also at. They told me later that these people were so excited that they had finally met and talked to some real rednecks. Now that was funny.

Gene said...

I find the term "Obamanite" is a good synonym for the term my Daddy and Grandpa used to use. A lot of us also refer to them, especially when they are in large groups, as "Democrats," as in, 'No, I am not going to the street festival because it will be nothing but Democrats." I have a friend who says NBA…as in, "Why does anyone go to Macon anymore, anyway? It is nothing but the NBA."

Now, Cracker, Redneck, Hillbilly, Swamp Rat, TrailerTrash, Hick, and Honkey are all racist terms thrown at white people. But, that seems to be smiled at by liberals who think it is cute. If those terms are cute, why aren't Porch Monkey, Spear Chunker, Burr Head, Home Boy, Snowball, and Gang Banger cute also? Just saying'...