Catholic archbishop of Guam endorses Islamist fundamentalist exeuction of gay people

[solarbird]

No, really:

"The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death. ... It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice."

Emphasis added. Part of a letter opposing a DP benefits bill in Guam, which he also claims will cause "the eventual end of Western Civilization. ... Civil society will implode."

h/t Sullivan.

eta: elfs ran the fax through an OCR reader to make it more easily searchable. Here's a link to help Google find it more easily: Catholic Archbishop of Guam endorses executing GBLT people like fundamentalist Islamist cultures.

Comments

Uh huh

[pierres.livejournal.com]

Right, like Father Mychal F. Judge, chaplain of the Fire Department of New York - the first to die in the September 11th attacks.

Pierre

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

So the culture of death must be opposed by yet another culture of death. Hypocritical much?

[solarbird]

Oh, absolutely! And for the cherry on top: the bill's leading sponsor (who is gay) was molested by one of the participants in the Pedophile Shuffle game the Catholic Church ran for a while. So the gall is just... outstanding.

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

So gays are self-absorbed to the point of cultural implosion, but suicide bombers are selfless to the point of ... personal explosion?

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

The archbishop reminds me of advice Abraham Lincoln once gave, "It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." The archbishop is stringing sentences together trying to make an argument, but his arguments don't make any sense in a Christian or historical content.

His first argument that homosexual marriage cannot beget children and therefore it is about nothing but sexual pleasure ignores all the other purposes of marriage. Okay, some Catholic priests have done that before. Nevertheless, that argument would also work against new marriages of heterosexual people older than childbearing age. And without any supporting arguments he generalizes that to the end of Western Civilization.

His second argument is that if married homosexuals adopted a child, the child would be either motherless or fatherless and, thus, would be missing a parent. That is an argument from arithmetic error. I have read of some people trying to gather evidence that having both types of parents is better than having two of one type, but the archbishop is not making this argument. He simply isn't counting one parent in a two-mother or two-father family.

His third argument is that homosexuals have more health problems than heterosexuals. I guess this is a veiled reference to AIDS. Even if it were true, I don't see what it has to do with marriage.

His fourth argument is the utter nonsense quoted above. Homosexuals are self-absorbed due to argument #1, therefore they are not self-sacrificing, therefore they support death, unlike the self-sacrificing suicide bombers of Islamic persuasion. Huh? If this were a spoken argument, I would think that he had become befuddled in his thoughts and just started rambling random sentences.

His fifth argument is that if we do not keep strong moral fiber by resisting homosexuality, then the Islamic fundamentalists will win. Which contradicts his praise of them in his prior argument.

I followed links over to his actual letter thinking that maybe he might have something serious to say about self sacrifice as a Christian value, but his letter was pure nonsense.

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

There's no shortage of wankers in the Catholic Church, (and that goes for the Pope as well.)

Re: Uh huh

[firni.livejournal.com]

What, he died before the people in the planes?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

In case you or someone else needs a complete textual copy, I've posted it to my LJ (http://elfs.livejournal.com/1151100.html).

His letter is nothing new, though. There is a serious strain of thought that reads something like "They hate us for our freedoms; if we tossed our freedoms aside, maybe they'd hate us less." Bill Donahoe (of the Catholic League) has said that many, many times. The Archbishop also echoes the whole "They'll outbreed us if we don't do something!" line of thinking (again, Bill Donahoe last week said that Catholics in America will have the last laugh because they supposedly outbreed secularists, not that there are any statistics to back him up). The number of times he predicted The Downfall of Civilization are startling. He even did "Won't somebody please think of the children!"

It really looks to me like the Church simply cannot deal intellectually with the whole concept of broad-spectrum sexual identity. Intersexuals must be classified as one or the other, and not allowed to pretend to anything but. It's a very sad, archaic thought process that binds them, and it'll be centuries before they can think anything else.

[solarbird]

I've linked to it to help Google find it.

[mikec1157.livejournal.com]

Years ago, early 1970s I believe in Junior High School, I saw a little poster or sticker with a drawing of a guy with a giant screw impelled in him, with the text "Do unto others, then split." I had to ask friends what that mean and was told that was the real version of the Catholics belief,(of course not by all Catholics), but enough. At the time I didn't understand it, and over the years have learned how true that is. I believe the Archbishop's belief is based in hate and the want of power over others, not in any religious belief.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

WHY DID I GO READ THAT?!?!?

he was seriously fucking attempting to make the argument that gay people can't CARE about each other!!!!!!! that only people who marry people of the opposite sex can experince a "love" that "transends sex"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



*RAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGERAGE*


i am seriously pulling MY HAIR. for fucks sake! even he follows that argument all of the way, NO ONE CAN LOVE ANYONE EXCEPT THE PERSON THEY ARE HAVING SEX WITH, PRESUMING THAT PERSON IS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. PARENTS won't LOVE CHILDREN, CHILDREN won't LOVE PARENTS, or SIBLINGS, FRIENDS won't LOVE EACH OTHER - !!!!!


i have to go and break things now.

[batyatoon]

Uh ...

no.


That's all I got.