Saint John Henry Newman
October 20th, 2019 at 6:24:52 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 | I think I should probably address Evenbob's claim that St. John Henry Newman was gay. The first thing I would say is so what if he was. The second thing I would say is that he most likely was not. We have lost the ability it seems to be best friends and intimate with other men now a days. When guys or girls live together and share live intimately, sharing their feelings, we think they must be gay and genitally involved. That is strange and simply not true. Why can we not love another man deeply and not be gay? Bob is also wrong, of course, on some other things. They never moved or reburied Newman in another grave. Also their attempt to exhume him (there was nothing left of him or even his casket when they opened the grave) was a usual practice when someone is beatified, the first step to sainthood. The blessed are often moved to a tomb more easily accessible for prayer and usually in a Church. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
October 20th, 2019 at 8:51:06 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Best friends? They doted on each other. Newman claimed when his partner died it was worse than losing a husband or a wife. Best friends? He insisted that he be buried in the same grave. C'mon.. So what, you say? So the Pope has banned Gay men from the priesthood, even if they're not having Gay sex. Of course the Vatican will claim that Newman and his partner were just good friends. If there can't be Gay priests (which of course there always will be) how can there be Gay saints. I didn't make this subject up, there are lots of priests who say Newman was Gay. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 21st, 2019 at 4:05:42 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
I will give a +1 here. The gay culture that has built in the USA means that if you live in a roommate situation and the other person is not a relative you get questioned. I am not quite on the wording of "love another man deeply" but more go on whatever happened to "just two guys, looking out for each other?" Think Felix and Oscar. Living costs are cheaper and you can live in a better place that way. You have a ride to the garage when your car is in the shop. You do not have to put your bartender under "who to notify in case of emergency." Some folks want no part of married and family life. Why should they have to be considered gay just because they find a way to fill a few of the gaps that are useful to them? The President is a fink. |
October 21st, 2019 at 5:22:52 AM permalink | |
Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
I agree. The same can be said with men and women renting together as well (maybe even more so). People always assume roommates have to be sexually or romantically involved. Some people just need roommates, and not everyone has family room live with (or does not want to). |
October 21st, 2019 at 5:25:45 AM permalink | |
Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
People like to do this with various historic figures. People have tried doing this with Lincoln. Like you said, if it was adult consesual relations, who cares even if it were true. But, more importantly, what is the purpose of gossiping about the sex lives of people from close to 200 years ago? They are both long dead, and his [potential/speculated] sex life is far from the most interesting thing about him. |
October 21st, 2019 at 10:58:24 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
The pope, for one. He has now banned all Gay men from even trying to get into a seminary. Of course this is a joke, he knows full well they'll all just lie about it. Without Gays you would lose 60% of the priesthood, and 80%-90% of Vatican priests. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 21st, 2019 at 11:00:14 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
A smart thing considering all the problems gay priests caused the past few decades. The President is a fink. |
October 21st, 2019 at 11:05:01 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Like banning Gay's in the military, it's a meaningless gesture. Back in the 70's I knew two middle aged guys who were officers in the AF in the 50's. When being Gay was a court martial offense. They said they never met so many Gay men in one place in their lives, the service was literally crawling with them. The pope is just mouthing empty words, he knows nothing will change. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
October 21st, 2019 at 11:15:35 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
They might be all around the OC, but that does not mean it was not a good policy. The military does not want the barracks becoming a bath house. The President is a fink. |
October 21st, 2019 at 2:42:34 PM permalink | |
Gandler Member since: Aug 15, 2019 Threads: 27 Posts: 4256 |
I like how everyone who thinks gays in the military is terrible, has never been in the military. Trust me, after DADT was repealed nothing at all changed.... Nobody cares, as long as you are where you are supposed to be when you are supposed to be there and can do your job. (Oh and most of the sexual assault issues in the military is almost exclusively straight men).... There had been homosexuality for generations in the military anyway, ("it's not gay if its underway", "its not gay if deployed"..... etc.... the premise being when women were not around for months-years, men tended to have sex with each other's when bored, even "straight" men....) Of course now with being able to be open, and women serving pretty much everywhere now, the dynamics are changing (for the better in my view).... |