An open letter to Detterling from
Swashbuckling Mulligan...
Dear Detterling,
I am very concerned about the level of stress you are putting Gene under. What sort of man puts anyone under stress from threats like this:
"I have devised a scheme for an intervention which will be put into execution during the next fortnight, whereby we will contact ordained and lay staff of Our Lady and St Michael, St Margaret's, St Bernadette's and St Laurence Cowley"
And I know for a fact that two of those parishes are not even Catholic.
Now first let's look at the Kiesle case. This concerned a priest who the Church disbarred from ministering as a priest from the very day he was charged with his offences. It concerned laicization. I don't think you understand what laicization is. It means ending a priest's privileges as to sacraments and returning him to lay status. In the Kiesle case it would certainly have been better for him not to be laicized but to continue as a priest without any public duties. He could in this state pray, repent and do penance for his sins.
That Kiesle ever had access to children again was down solely to the State Of California which, inexplicable, did not put him on the sex offenders register. Only you and the bitter and twisted Dawkins think differently. And we know Dawkins' reason. Pope Benedict spectacularly kicked the New Atheists into permanent touch.
About the Paedophile Information Exchange: There's no question that this organisation's existence was condoned by the Left. It was affiliated for ten years to the NCCL, an organisation which was the epitome of the Left and actually campaigned for legalisation of sex between adults and children. Check out statements by its legal officer Marie Staunton.
And about your statement that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy would be: this is blasphemous and deeply offensive to all Christians. Sodomy was anathema to the Jewish faith and is was axiomatic that Jesus would have viewed it as heinous sin. Your barroom theology that Jesus did not mention sodomy is pathetic. He didn't mention bestiality - do we infer from this that we do not know his views on this vile sin? He didn't mention paedophilia - do we infer from this that we do not know his views on this vile sin?
Detterling you should get on your knees, do penance in sackcloth and ashes, and beg forgiveness for the stress you have put Gene under.
Swashbuckling Mulligan
BOLLOCKS, GENE.
ReplyDeleteI AM NOT DIGNIFYING THIS DEMENTED SHITE WITH A RESPONSE SAVE TO SAY THAT IT MAKES A MENTAL HEALTH INTERVENTION FOR GENE YET MORE URGENT THAN WE THOUGHT. I SHALL TRY TO GET THE INITIAL DOCUMENTS READY BY SUNDAY. FOR THE MOMENT GENE HOLD STEADY, HELP IS ON THE WAY.
Well said Swashbuckling. Detterling does not have a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteMary Winterbourne
BOLLOCKS, GENE.
Delete"And about your statement that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy would be: this is blasphemous and deeply offensive to all Christians. Sodomy was anathema to the Jewish faith and is was axiomatic that Jesus would have viewed it as heinous sin. Your barroom theology that Jesus did not mention sodomy is pathetic. He didn't mention bestiality - do we infer from this that we do not know his views on this vile sin? He didn't mention paedophilia - do we infer from this that we do not know his views on this vile sin?"
DeleteDetterling please bring this up with your parish priest.
No, Gene, that will not wash.
DeleteI did bring it up with her yesterday, and she laughed until she nearly wet herself, particularly at the way you went straight from scoffing at my "bar-room theology" to claiming that because Christ is not on record as having condemned bestiality then we might infer that he approved of it.
She had already seen your repeated attempts to smear me as a supporter of paedophilia simply because I am not on record as having condemned it and, like me, caught on to the fact that you have used the same nonsensical argument to point in two directions, viz
[a] in my case, because I am not on record as having condemned paedophilia, you infer from this that I must therefore approve of it;
[b] in the case of Christ, because he is not on record as having condemned anal sexual intercourse, paedophilia and bestiality, you are perfectly entitled to conclude that he condemned all three, you stupid bugger.
As my parish priest said, this Bobby Kennedy character sounds as if he thinks he knows better than God.
But don't worry, Gene, the intervention will probably be ready to go by next Tuesday, so try not to get drunk and post more demented crap before then, eh?
And I note that you are censoring my comments again.
DeleteWhy else does the sub-heading say "Five comments" when there are only four?"
"Why else does the sub-heading say "Five comments" when there are only four?"
ReplyDeleteWho the f**k cares?
Sugarboy Nando
Your parish priest would be totally appalled that anyone professing Christianity would claim that we would not know the views of Jesus on sodomy. Don't pretend you brought this subject up with her.
DeleteGENE
Because you wank on and on and on about “free speech” and then deny it to others when they show up how two faced you are.
Delete"I did bring it up with her yesterday, and she laughed until she nearly wet herself, particularly at the way you went straight from scoffing at my "bar-room theology" to claiming that because Christ is not on record as having condemned bestiality then we might infer that he approved of it."
ReplyDelete????? Pack it in Detterling. You have lost the plot.
Although Christ never mentioned sodomy, bestiality or paedophilia only a theological ignoramus would claim that he did not condemn such vile sins. But, then again... maybe a member of the pinko/liberal Left... No... not even such a person would consider such moronic blasphemy.
GENE
Bollocks, Gene, you are the one who has lost the plot, and insulting me as a theological ignoramus won’t conceal that.
ReplyDeleteYou were asked to provide scriptural evidence of Christ’s attitude to anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality, and you have provided none, because there is none.
Saying “well obviously he can’t have” is the feeblest possible bluster. And citing Jewish mores won’t wash either - it was his lack of Jewish orthodoxy that signed his death warrant.
This statement is by Pope Francis. I remember very well the circumstances in which he made this statement. And very good it is. Do you have a problem with it Detterling?
ReplyDeleteBut this statement makes no reference to sodomy which remains grave sin in the Christian faith. Check out the Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists et al.
GENE
On the contrary, it provides a welcome contrast to your own repellent bigotry.
DeleteAnd as for this,
"But this statement makes no reference to sodomy which remains grave sin in the Christian faith."
stop making stuff up.
None of these denominations has pronounced on the sinfulness or otherwise of anal sexual intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Your own prurient obsession with other peoples' anal sphincters [which screams of your own repressed homosexuality, but more of that next week], along with your fervent desire to act out your own "manliness" prevents you from accepting that the physical expression of homosexual love between other people - provided that it is legal and consensual - is, so to speak, bugger all to do with you. Why don't you come out of the closet, Gene? You will feel a whole lot better when you do.
"None of these denominations has pronounced on the sinfulness or otherwise of anal sexual intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual."
ReplyDeleteNow it is clear that you have totally lost it.
Check out the Catholic Church's clear and unequivocal teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always sinful.
How about your own Church: "Homosexual acts are incompatible with the Scriptures"?
Coming out with such brazen denials is proof, as if proof was needed, that you have totally lost it.
GENE
"Check out the Catholic Church's clear and unequivocal teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always sinful."
DeleteBollocks - superseded by Fr Bergoglio's wise and compassionate ruling that
"the doctrinal interpretation by the magisterium, as promulgated (published with legal effect) by Pope Francis, expressly approved blessings for couples of the same sex."
And this promulgation imposed no conditions as to the condition of couples' sexual relationship, least of all how it is expressed.
""Homosexual acts are incompatible with the Scriptures"
More bollocks. Superseded by the church's decision to bless in church the marriages of same-sex couples, irrespective of the state and manner of how these couples express their sexuality.
Your coming out with such ignorant, brazen denials of how true Christians are observing St Paul's teaching that all are one in Christ Jesus is proof, if proof were needed, that your psychiatric intervention is both overdue and sorely needed.
"...prevents you from accepting that the physical expression of homosexual love"
ReplyDeleteYOU FILTHY BEAST.
GENE
ReplyDeleteFACT ONE : the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger in refusing to laicise Fr Stephen Keisle in 1985, such that he was enabled, with Ratzinger's connivance, to go on buggering small boys and raping little girls for a further three years. Gene tried everything he knew to refute this fact, but he failed.
You were beaten out of sight on this and you know it. Only you and Dawkins hold that the Catholic Church did anything wrong in the Kiesle case.
FACT TWO: Again you were beaten out of sight. The Left did condone the affiliation of the PIE with the NCCL for ten years. Utterly disgusting.
The NCCL campaigned for the lowering of the age of consent. Had this happened adults could legally have sex with children of fourteen. Utterly disgusting.
FACT THREE:
" St Paul, whose teachings demonstrably take little account of the Gospels."
Ha! Ha! Ha! Saint Paul's writings certainly take little account of the Gospels. The gospels were not yet written at the time Paul was writing. Maybe I was over generous in calling you a barroom theologian!
Your statement that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy and homosexual practices would be is the most disgusting view I have ever heard any Christian express.
"the physical expression of homosexual love between other people"
Ugg! Pass the sick bag Alice. You filthy beast.
Gene
No, Gene, simply repeating the nonsensical claims that have been refuted tine after time after time will not prove that they are right.
ReplyDeleteYou have NEVER disproved Ratzinger’s authorship of the 1985 letter in which he refused to laicise Stephen Kiesle “for the greater good of the Catholic Church” and to “prevent distress to the Catholic faithful.” As a result, Kiesle was enabled to abuse children as a volunteer minister for a further three years. Not one word of your windy bluster has come anywhere refuting those facts.
Nor have you come anywhere near proving that “the Left” - which has no choate existence anyway - supported paedophilia. All you have proved, using ten year old journalism from one of the most dishonest newspapers in Britain, is that fifty years ago, several left wing politicians were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the NCCL what time the PIE was affiliated to the latter. Any competent logician will tell you that deducing that those politicians supported PIE is a grotesque piece of post/propter hoc reasoning.
Nor does wanking on about the timeline of the gospel writers and St Paul’s ministry mean anything. I was responding to your preposterous assertion that St Paul was a great teacher of the Christian faith. He wasn’t. What he taught was the gospel of St Paul, and a proper pantomime some of it is.
Nor is your waffle about Christ’s attitudes to homosexuality and anal sexual intercourse in the least convincing.
You were asked to produce textual evidence of these attitudes and you failed to do so because you couldn’t. Further waffle about Jewish Law (which Christ said he had superseded) and fornication ( which he mentioned once in another connection) likewise proves nothing, and your shouting it louder and louder and louder will not change your abject failure to make your case into success.
Although I am vastly entertained by your pretence at revulsion about homosexuals making love. Your fascination with that whole idea encapsulates your repressed homosexuality in a phrase. A good basis for the intervention’s starting point…
"I have nowhere said that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy and homosexual practices would be."
ReplyDeleteOh! yes you have!
"You claimed that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse [presumably whether heterosexual or homosexual but consensual in either case] and homosexuality in the Gospels."
No I did not. I claimed that we know what the view of Jesus would be on sodomy and homosexual acts.
You are certainly losing it Detterling.
GENE
" "I have nowhere said that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy and homosexual practices would be." " Oh! yes you have!
ReplyDeleteThis is not a pantomime, Gene [although your lack of coherence suggests a ninth rate pantomime script], so, "Oh, yes you have/Oh no you haven't" does not cut it as an argument.
Stop making stuff up, Gene.
You said that Christ condemned sodomy. And asked to prove this by citing chapter and verse from the Gospels, you couldn't, because he didn't. Open and shut: another Vincent fail.
You have said many times that we do not know what the views of Jesus on sodomy would be. This because he is not recorded mentioning the subject in the Gospels. An outrageous statement!
ReplyDeleteI have said that it is axiomatic that we know the views of Jesus on sodomy.
Your argument has been that because Jesus did not mention sodomy we therefore don't know his views on the subject.
I pointed out that Jesus never mentioned bestiality or paedophilia. Are we therefore to infer that we do not know what his views on those heinous sins would be?
You have been demolished Detterling.
GENE
Nonsense, Gene. I have never said that we do not know what the views of Jesus on anal sexual intercourse [presumably whether heterosexual or homosexual but consensual in either case] and homosexuality
DeleteNor was your claim that it is axiomatic that we know the views of Jesus on sodomy what you originally said on the topic.
You said that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse [presumably whether heterosexual or homosexual but consensual in either case] and homosexuality in the Gospels.
I asked you to substantiate this claim by citing chapter and verse in the Gospels where this condemnation was made.
You couldn't, and can't, because he didn't.
All the rest of your subsequent bluster, slithering, wriggling and weaselling has been the usual wind and piss you indulge in when you have been proved wrong.
Stop making stuff up, Gene. And make no mistake. I will go on reposting this response as long as you go on posting lies about what I did and didn't say. I am not going to walk away from this argument so that you can claim "victory".
Up yours, Gene.
"You said that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse [presumably whether heterosexual or homosexual but consensual in either case] and homosexuality in the Gospels."
ReplyDeleteI never said that. If I did you would be able to show me the quote where I said it. You can't.
You have lost it Detterling.
GENE
"You said that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse [presumably whether heterosexual or homosexual but consensual in either case] and homosexuality in the Gospels."
DeleteI never said that. If I did you would be able to show me the quote where I said it. You can't.
I was rephrasing your original and loaded statement to try to make you seem less crass, unChristian and nasty. What you actually said was
"Christ condemned sodomy in the Gospels."
I asked you to substantiate this claim by citing chapter and verse in the Gospels where this condemnation was made.
You couldn't, and can't, because he didn't.
All the rest of your subsequent bluster, slithering, wriggling and weaselling has been the usual wind and piss you indulge in when you have been proved wrong.
Stop making stuff up, Gene. And make no mistake. I will go on reposting this response as long as you go on posting lies about what I did and didn't say. I am not going to walk away from this argument so that you can claim "victory".
What you actually said was
ReplyDelete"Christ condemned sodomy in the Gospels."
What a liar! I never said that. Find me the quote where I did you bare-faced liar.