> “What Cardinal Dolan may not have known is that many of Mr. Kirk’s words were marked by racist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, by violent pro-gun advocacy, and by the promotion of Christian nationalism,” the sisters wrote in their statement.
They devoted themselves to the Catholic Church but they are so against Christian nationalism, homophobia, and transphobia that they issued a statement?
Do they know the history and current stances of the church? Kirk was called transphobic because he didn't validate gender identity, and homophobic because he doesn't support gay marriage ... Those are current positions of the church today! If they really hold this ethical view, why haven't they left the church?
On a related note, a lot of the conservative women in my area are getting nose rings and only fans accounts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,392,782
@previous (cccuuunnttt !Memes4aSuc)
Do you think it makes sense for people to voluntarily join an organization, never complain about it's values, and then to suddenly criticize one of that organizations leaders for holding values that have always been there? But only in this one context?
Any moron can all people morons, there's no standard for that. If someone could point out a contradiction I've made that would actually mean something.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,392,785
@1,392,781 (cccuuunnttt !Memes4aSuc)
You must have passed the LSAT, but you don't see simple contradictions?
I've met XX-impaired attourneys in person, and 100% of them have said something that revealed they lack very basic verbal reasoning skills.
I know what's on that test, and it should be impossible to pass without those skills. So everyone's playing dumb, but ever breaks character, even when they have no reason to play dumb to begin with.
There must be some explanation. Widespread cheating?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,392,787
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) > irony > noun > Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
One would expect a Catholic nun to uphold Catholic values, but many nuns got together to declare that Kirk was homophobic and transphobic for sharing views that are identical to the Catholic view.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,392,789
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It's not, because if they expressed liberal views about gay relationships they'd be in a liberal/mainstream protestant church.
A Catholic priest with an open and noted compassion for gay people would still avoid contradicting official church doctrine. It would be phrased in a "love everyone, regardless of their sin" way.
The sisters are calling Kirk (evangelical protestant) homophobic, but his views are identical to Catholic leadership on it. So they are implicitly saying the Catholic leadership is "homophobic".
Isn't that grounds for excommunication technically? Not that they will be, it's easy enough to ignore one part of the letter, and to wave it off because they don't explicitly say "the Pope is wrong about gay marriage", but it's a necessary implication of what they wrote.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,392,790
I’m Catholic. Do you not see how Christian nationalism in a Protestant majority nation might backfire against us? Protestants are called Protestants because they protest Catholicism. They’re fundamentally opposed to us. It won’t work. I’ll also remind you that the Catholic Church is already a sovereign nation. It’s called the Vatican.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,392,791
@1,392,789 (A)
Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism are fundamentally incompatible with each other. We believe that there is only one true church founded by Jesus Christ.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,801
I'll spell it out, because this isn't sticking.
Old traditional Catholic nuns are just as much attached to the whims of secular fads as any rainbow haired liberal feminist, even when it means contradicting their ostensible spiritual leader.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,802
@1,392,797 (A)
I know Catholics who are left wing and Catholics who are right wing. Most people don’t have a binary view on anything. I know people who are Catholic who support abortion but not gay marriage, people who don’t support abortion or gay marriage, and people who support both.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,805
@previous (D)
If you can disagree with core doctrine and still say you adhere to the religion, what does it mean to be a member?
Can a member in good standing believe in Muhammed and reincarnation too? The church will fund the boarding of people that write public letters accepting those ideas?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 29 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,806
@1,392,803 (A)
So like… you know how when you brought up Charlie Kirk my first response was that Catholicism and Protestantism are fundamentally incompatible? If you don’t even respect the Catholic Church, and you believe in a political ideology more than you believe in Christianity, to the point you’re judging a religion based on whether it fits your political ideology instead of the other way around, then why should I listen to you exactly?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,808
@1,392,805 (A)
Well are you Catholic? If you’re any type of Christian other than Catholic then your faith was born out of a human disagreeing with the church founded by Jesus.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 48 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,810
So, I took a look at the article you linked to, this is what they actually said:
“What Cardinal Dolan may not have known is that many of Mr. Kirk’s words were marked by racist, homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant rhetoric, by violent pro-gun advocacy, and by the promotion of Christian nationalism,” the sisters wrote in their statement. “These prejudicial words do not reflect the qualities of a saint. To compare Mr. Kirk to St. Paul risks confusing the true witness of the Gospel and giving undue sanction to words and actions that hurt the very people Jesus calls us to love.”
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,812
Homophobia and transphobia are when you hate gay people and you hate trans people. Not believing in gay marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that someone hates gay people. I know Catholics IRL who have said things like, "I don’t hate gay people I just don’t agree with them." And the statement about comparing Charlie Kirk to a saint being inappropriate is just true. Anyone can’t just be a saint, being a saint means that the church is saying they’re basically sure that you’re going straight to heaven when you die without purgatory, and you performed divine miracles during your lifetime. You can’t compare normal people to saints, that’s not an unusual statement to make.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,813
The Catholic Church’s view on sin is that everyone is born with sin, except for Mary and Jesus who were born without sin, so when most people die they go to purgatory to be purified. I’m not a Charlie Kirk fan so I don’t know what he said about gay people, but the Catholic Church does believe that just because someone is gay that doesn’t necessarily mean that God won’t forgive them in purgatory and that they won’t still end up in heaven. But some Protestants do believe that gay people go to hell.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,815
@previous (A)
I don’t know Charlie Kirk well enough to confirm or deny whether the worst thing he ever said about gay people is that he doesn’t believe in gay marriage. He does have some outta pocket quotes like supporting public executions and whatnot.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,816
To be honest, I think, the actual reason might not be politics, the actual reason might have more to do with his aesthetic. It’s hard to describe, but I feel like one of the cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants at least in America is this whole thing of debating or owning the other side doesn’t really fit well with Catholic culture in general. They probably didn’t like his controversial aesthetic. The church usually doesn’t try to be very provocative, if that makes sense.
Anonymous D quadruple-posted this 4 months ago, 24 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,818
…the premise of this is a bit silly though. Why would a Catholic get excommunicated for calling a Protestant homophobic? Even if hypothetically Charlie Kirk’s view on homosexuality was exactly the same as the pope, that doesn’t make him the pope.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,819
@previous (D) > Why would a Catholic get excommunicated for calling a Protestant homophobic?
That's not the claim.
The claim is that saying someone is hateful for a specific view, when that view is identical to the Pope's, is an admission they don't agree with the Pope's view in public.
How can you publicly rebuke the church's official stance while being officially supported and sanctioned by the church?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,820
@previous (A)
In context, it doesn’t really seem like it to me personally. Part of the statement also brought up racism and immigration, which does align more with the church.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,822
I mean, in what other context would you use this logic of being guilty of accusing someone by proxy? I mean, it’s like a teacher telling a kid to be quiet because they’re interrupting history class and then accusing the teacher of being against the constitution because the kid had exactly the same opinion of free speech as George Washington or something. It feels like a bit of a stretch.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,823
@1,392,820 (D)
Disagreeing with the church on the one hand, and then holding an unrelated but church-compatable opinion on the other hand, is still a case where you've disagreed with the church.
The latter doesn't negate the former.
Publicly disagreeing with church doctrine doesn't somehow go away because of an unrelated statement on the same occasion.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,824
@previous (A)
I don’t really feel like the statement is evidence that they disagreed with the pope though, they were expressing disagreement with Charlie Kirk. Just because you think Charlie Kirk had exactly the same views on gay marriage as the pope did doesn’t mean that they did. But they could have been wrong about the belief that Charlie Kirk was worse somehow. But the statement makes it clear they they disagreed with Charlie Kirk for more than one reason.
> I mean, in what other context would you use this logic of being guilty of accusing someone by proxy?
> I mean, it’s like a teacher telling a kid to be quiet because they’re interrupting history class and then accusing the teacher of being against the constitution because the kid had exactly the same opinion of free speech as George Washington or something.
That analogy fails because you've transformed the statement, while I haven't.
Try it without doing that, and it would make sense: A teacher tells a kid they are wrong about a fact mentioned in their essay. The facts espoused in the national curricula affirm the fact identically to the way the kid said it.
Then the teacher says they aren't contradicting the curricula because they technically only said the kid was wrong.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,826
@previous (A)
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the teacher knows that they’re contradicting the curricula though. And I think that intention is kind of important.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,827
Because, there could be two reasons why the teacher doesn’t know they’re contradicting the curricula, either they don’t know what the curricula is or they misunderstood what the kid said.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,828
But hypothetically, if the teacher said the kid was wrong, then yes that would mean the teacher was contradicting the fact that the kid said which means they’re technically contradicting the curricula, but if it’s because they thought the kid said something other than what the kid actually said, then the teacher isn’t really intentionally contradicting the curricula. So it doesn’t make sense for it to necessarily imply that the teacher is guilty of actually consciously lacking knowledge or agreement with the curricula. Since it’s possible for that to not be the case.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,830
@1,392,824 (D)
If they didn't know his views are identical to the Pope (not affirming gay marriage & preaching love not hate towards gay people) it would still be ironic, you'd have only explained the cause of the irony.
It's should be embarrassing how many different people have just made up things that he said. It's not just online leftists creating responses without double-checking, even conservative people working full time in the church just mindlessly repeat "homophobic" without bothering to check before making public statements.
It's the same as conservative women punching holes in their nose so they don't miss out on the latest trend. There is one hegemonic culture, and it targets people who don't pass purity tests on the latest fad.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 10 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,831
Because a possibility is, for example, they could have heard Charlie Kirk say something they disagreed with, that made them dislike Charlie Kirk, they encountered other people who also didn’t like Charlie Kirk who said he was homophobic, and so they believed it. That’s totally a possibility that doesn’t involve them contradicting the pope intentionally.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,833
@1,392,828 (D)
I dismissed every grumpy right wing guy telling me all this would happen, but I'm still glad they said something so I can look back and know more.
100%, these nuns will be splitting their tongue in two and hissing if that ever catches on among popular girls in secular society, there will just be a slight delay before it hits the nunnery.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 6 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,834
For example, the last paragraph of the article, if you heard a guy talking about "prowling blacks" it makes sense most people would have a negative emotional reaction to hearing a person said that and would be more open to believing that person is bad in general.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,835
@1,392,831 (D)
It wasn't just one person, and there is a duty to verify what he said before writing a letter critical of a cardinal.
They did it because this is how women behave when in groups, and the Internet has eliminated the boundaries that society carefully cultivated to civilize them.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,836
@1,392,834 (D)
Notice that you're again bringing up something that has nothing to do with the actual proposition I asserted.
They could have just critiqued Kirk's views on race or immigration, but chose to critique his views on affirming LGBT people even though those views are official doctrine of the organization supporting them.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 49 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,838
@1,392,836 (A)
If this was literally anyone else you wouldn’t get this worked up over it. Homophobia and transgenderism were literally just two words of the letter.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 59 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,840
@previous (A)
Dude, you’re literally saying women need to be civilized and insulting nuns. If you’re not careful about what you say, why should other people be?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,842
@previous (A)
I’m not Protestant and I don’t plan on becoming one so to tell you the truth I’m not terribly interested in where Martin Luther was getting his fliers printed out back in the day. Medieval office max. Jk
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,845
@previous (A)
Interesting. I thought everybody was saying Charlie Kirk believed in free speech. But oh no, decent by proxy based on the assumption that an evangelical Protestant who doesn’t believe in the authority of the pope exactly agrees with the pope on something, can’t have that.
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,847
Like dude, the United States is majority Protestant, my whole life I’ve lived in a country where most people belong to religions established specifically in opposition to my religion. As far as criticizing the Catholic Church goes, this is some weak sauce.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,848
8 crusades against Islam, torturing people for hundreds of years during the Spanish Inquisition, forcing native Americans to convert in Canadian boarding schools, colonizing the Philippines, colonizing South America, women’s rights, the IRA blowing up civilians, but you’re pressed over some nuns using the word "transphobia" and "homophobia?" Really? This is what’s pressing you?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,853
@previous (D)
Real problems? The unique thing about religion is that it's the topic people will say is #1. Religious alliances trancended kingdoms and nations.
Who knows if I can use that Bible, maybe they'd have a sense of humor or just apathy. There is no central authority who issues the right opinion, everyone just has their feelings.
These nuns called him homophobic for the same reason they all decided to live in a womens-only space, and the same reason the Boston Globe sold more papers in 2002.
> 8 crusades against Islam, torturing people for hundreds of years during the Spanish Inquisition, forcing native Americans to convert in Canadian boarding schools, colonizing the Philippines, colonizing South America, women’s rights, the IRA blowing up civilians, but you’re pressed over some nuns using the word "transphobia" and "homophobia?" Really? This is what’s pressing you?
But like seriously though. Jewish ghettos in Rome, but you’re mad about this? It’s like you expect me to denounce Catholicism because some nuns said two words even though I stuck around knowing about actual atrocities. Why would you think I care about this?
cccuuunnttt !Memes4aSuc replied with this 4 months ago, 26 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,392,871
@1,392,785 (A)
Oh, I didn't write the note, idk who you are or who wrote it. I just thought you should know. I'm surprised you're not thanking me for the information.