Offensensitivity

Though I've been away from the blog for awhile, getting used to this whole "married" thing, I did notice that Tom and I have received our first banning, though it was only from a tongue-in-cheek site. Though the site that flagged us is a hoot, it does speak to the truth that the orthodox leanings of Tom and I are considered by many “progressive Catholics” – the ones who are prone to blather on about the "spirit of Vatican II" (not to be confused with the actual promulgations of Vatican II) – to be somewhere between merely backward to downright Neanderthal.

Even if the banning was only in jest, I was rather disappointed that the only offenses we were cited for were "C" (clericalism), "R" (Republicanism), and "PH" (Phariseeism). By Clericalism, I suppose, it means that we consider neither most priests nor the magisterium to be a bunch of mouth-breathing morons. The "R" (Republicanism) designation could be considered somewhat accurate, though neither Tom nor I are registered with that party. And by Phariseeism, I’m guessing that it means.....well, I don’t know what that means.

I was outraged. Tom and I are way more objectionable than that.

How could this tolerant, inclusive little enclave of post-Vatican II enlightenment overlook the various medieval, outdated, and thoroughly offensive opinions offered here regularly on “Tom and Jerry”? In short, I am offended at his lack of offense at our offensive offensiveness. Just look at all the additional outrages (with accompanying capital letters) that we should be cited for:

O (Offensive, which the "spirit of Vatican II" folks describe as “anti-womyn, anti-GLBT...”)

How on earth could anyone NOT get their collective panties in a bunch over “Tom and Jerry”’s blatant anti-womyn and anti-GLBT stances? We have definitely earned the anti-womyn designation, as we champion NFP, abhor abortion, and feel no particular outrage that the Church does not ordain females to the priesthood. While we’re definitely pro-women, we’re definitely anti-womyn, given that womyn bear only a slight resemblance to the wonderful creatures known as women. I know that I like women: I married one of them, my sister is one of the finest people on earth, and count many women as close friends. Women combine of the dignity of Jaqueline Onassis, the peaceful touch of Mother Theresa, the charm of Audrey Hepburn, the forgiveness of St. Therese, the concern for men of Florence Nightingale, and the concern for their fellow women of Susan B. Anthony. Womyn, on the other hand, exhibit the dignity of Bill Clinton, the peaceful touch of Lizzie Borden, the grace and charm of Rosie O’Donnell, the forgiveness of Madame DeFarge, the concern for men of Aileen Wuornos, and the concern for their fellow women of the Marquis de Sade.

As for the outrages committed here against the GLBT community, well, we haven’t had that many, but I promise that we’ll work on it. While I don’t bear any ill-will toward any of the folks who identify themselves by that rather unwieldy acronym, I have, however, grown somewhat weary over the fact that, for the last 20 some-odd years, the “love that dare not speak its name” can’t seem to shut up about itself. Anyone who ventures into the waters of modern Western culture is sure to be doused by the veritable tsunami of relentless pro-homosexual propaganda from just about every conceivable media outlet. The message has progressed with great alacrity from one of “encouraging tolerance” to “demanding acceptance” to the “demonization of any non-enthusiastic approval” of these folks and their “lifestyle”. I am sick and damned tired of all the movies, TV shows, talk shows, and print and digital media (and now even elementary school sex-ed programs) proclaiming how wonderful homosexuals are, and how beautiful and normal homosexuality is, and how cruel and bigoted and intolerant it must be not to whole-heartedly approve of homosexuals, and cheer them on, applaud the things they do, and reflexively acquiesce to their every demand. What I find even more disagreeable is the assumption, rapidly becoming universal, that those of us sharing this opinion should keep our mouths shut if we know what's good for us.

Of course, these offenses are exacerbated by our...

OOO (Orifice Oration Opposition)

Neither Tom nor I are all that thrilled that the Vagina Monologues and the Queer Film Festival (“The Anal Articulations”?) are still leaving their trail of slime across the Notre Dame campus. Both the monologuers and the articulators choose to define themselves either through their particular orifice-of-choice (VM) or by their particular use of it (QFF), then hurl epithets at anyone who opposes their rather narrow view of themselves and both man- and womankind. Of course, anyone who objects to these productions is guilty of...

I (Intolerance)

Of course, the “spirit of Vatican II” folks, like all enlightened folks, pride themselves on being supremely tolerant: Everybody has their own truth and everybody’s truth is right. Oh, except the orthodox Catholic one. Being supremely tolerant, the one thing the supremely tolerant cannot tolerate is Catholic orthodoxy, as it, or any notion that there is objective truth, is intolerant. Therefore, they cannot be tolerant of that which is intolerant of the tolerance that they tolerate, nor of the intolerant folks who tolerate the intolerance that the tolerant are intolerant of. Because no rational person could disagree with (or even comprehend) this ethos, Tom and I - and all those who champion orthodoxy - must be intolerant and therefore silenced.

Once silenced, though, our offenses will no doubt continue, even at church. I’ll cover our Sunday offensiveness in "Offensensitivity, Part II" tomorrow...