Randy Engel's book Rite of sodomy
#11
I own the book.  I have read it and refer to it frequently.  It is disturbing on a host of levels.  I suggest all Catholics buy it and read it.

In my view the author is most concerned about HOW the homosexual collective has absolutely corrupted the church.  There is a vast chasm of difference between communism and fascism in her mind.  She provides enough evidence to prove the communist movements of the 20th century allowed this final, or at least latest, corruption to happen.  At the same time, fascism seems to be the only solution in her view.  She makes favorable references to Mussolini and Franco among others, and speaks ill of Hitler only so far as he was insane. Concepts of political freedom, liberty, individual rights and other things that might be considered American, or relating to the enlightenment in general, all fall under her corruptive Marxist/Communist umbrella. 
Since reading the book and pondering the church's 2000+ year history and my personal role in it these days as common parishoner,  I find myself filtering all things catholic thru this filter - Is it communist, fascist, or is there some other ground/scripture that allows happiness, individual liberty, etc.  while being a full member of the Catholic Church.
In any event, she covers all the bases.  What homosex is, how it infiltrates and metasticizes itself in any organization, convinces its newest inductees not to betray their enlightened homosexual nature.
It is a mindblowing perspective. Long story short, the author feels the church can be fixed by hardcore (read fascist) insiders.  (By the way, Benedict is not the one to fix things, as she identifies in the epilogue).  I do not think it can be fixed at this point - it is thoroughly corrupt and those who fight the battle inside - ie true pro-life, true family, etc. are basically feeding the bad guys (clergy) with their sense of stewardship.  The only way to fix it is to abandon it and let it die. It can be rebuilt.  Isaiah 55:6, Mark 12:31, Matthew 5:14, Luke 17:21.  I just don't know many good Catholics who are willing to abandon their Church to save it.
Reply
#12
Will someone explain this stuff about Paul IV being homosexual?
Reply
#13
(12-27-2009, 06:17 AM)artificial person Wrote: Tried finding it, no luck.  looks like all stephen Hand's stuff is down, he does have an e-mail address though.
I remember at the end of the Makow interview Engel commented about Ratzingers effeminate poses and the young effiminate male secretary that travelled around with him and that there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual.

Really.  Really!??!!

No, really?

Wow.  That's quite an accusation.  Yes indeed, quite an accusation.
Reply
#14
(12-30-2009, 12:36 AM)Walty Wrote: Will someone explain this stuff about Paul IV being homosexual?

The story(nutshell): Pre-papacy, as Montini, he was apparently arrested for soliciting a male prostitute. This was shushed up.

I'm not entirely sure how/why since at the time he wasn't a cardinal,  much less a papal shortlister. He had no  power then, so to speak, he was just monsignor(?), thus, a priest basically.

Perhaps it was a courtesy extended by the local police to  clergyman, maybe they dealt with it by informing superiors (e.g. their bishop) back then.

Really not sure how that would have flown,  but it sure was a different time...
Reply
#15
(12-27-2009, 06:17 AM)artificial person Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:29 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: What a frustrating radio interview.  She couldn't answer a single question it seemed without being interrupted for the commercials.  The part about Paul VI never got explored, the part about the media blackout of the book was cut off at the end.

I wonder if she re-released it in four volumes would people be more interested and less daunted to tackle such a huge and pricey book? 

There's a much better interview with few/no interruptions via TCR with Stephen Hand. Check it out, it was back in Sept. I don't have time to look for it right now, it seems everything Stephen Hand has ever done is being removed from the web. I'm not joking-- both blogs, all radio content, etc. Go figure. It's out there somewhere, I'll get to it late unless you beat me to it.

Great interview BTW, they get into the Montini stuff, very interesting.

Tried finding it, no luck.  looks like all stephen Hand's stuff is down, he does have an e-mail address though.
I remember at the end of the Makow interview Engel commented about Ratzingers effeminate poses and the young effiminate male secretary that travelled around with him and that there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual.

"there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual". That's really not a good principle to work from.
Reply
#16
(12-30-2009, 01:37 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-27-2009, 06:17 AM)artificial person Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:29 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: What a frustrating radio interview.  She couldn't answer a single question it seemed without being interrupted for the commercials.  The part about Paul VI never got explored, the part about the media blackout of the book was cut off at the end.

I wonder if she re-released it in four volumes would people be more interested and less daunted to tackle such a huge and pricey book? 

There's a much better interview with few/no interruptions via TCR with Stephen Hand. Check it out, it was back in Sept. I don't have time to look for it right now, it seems everything Stephen Hand has ever done is being removed from the web. I'm not joking-- both blogs, all radio content, etc. Go figure. It's out there somewhere, I'll get to it late unless you beat me to it.

Great interview BTW, they get into the Montini stuff, very interesting.

Tried finding it, no luck.  looks like all stephen Hand's stuff is down, he does have an e-mail address though.
I remember at the end of the Makow interview Engel commented about Ratzingers effeminate poses and the young effiminate male secretary that travelled around with him and that there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual.

"there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual". That's really not a good principle to work from.

Yeah, that's the principle I was working from. :rolleyes:

We've said we can't find the interview, you don't even know the details.
Reply
#17
Could Peterdamian expand on this interesting statement about the book:

"...how it infiltrates and metasticizes itself in any organization..."

One would think that it would be suppressed within the Church, considering the priesthood is expected to be celibate and sexual expression is considered sinful outside marriage.
Reply
#18
(12-30-2009, 02:02 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-30-2009, 01:37 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-27-2009, 06:17 AM)artificial person Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:29 PM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 10:52 AM)Gerard Wrote: What a frustrating radio interview.  She couldn't answer a single question it seemed without being interrupted for the commercials.  The part about Paul VI never got explored, the part about the media blackout of the book was cut off at the end.

I wonder if she re-released it in four volumes would people be more interested and less daunted to tackle such a huge and pricey book? 

There's a much better interview with few/no interruptions via TCR with Stephen Hand. Check it out, it was back in Sept. I don't have time to look for it right now, it seems everything Stephen Hand has ever done is being removed from the web. I'm not joking-- both blogs, all radio content, etc. Go figure. It's out there somewhere, I'll get to it late unless you beat me to it.

Great interview BTW, they get into the Montini stuff, very interesting.

Tried finding it, no luck.  looks like all stephen Hand's stuff is down, he does have an e-mail address though.
I remember at the end of the Makow interview Engel commented about Ratzingers effeminate poses and the young effiminate male secretary that travelled around with him and that there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual.

"there was no proof but there was a great possibility of him being a homosexual". That's really not a good principle to work from.

Yeah, that's the principle I was working from. :rolleyes:

We've said we can't find the interview, you don't even know the details.

That was addressed to "Artificial Person", not you.
Reply
#19
(12-30-2009, 03:11 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: One would think that it would be suppressed within the Church, considering the priesthood is expected to be celibate and sexual expression is considered sinful outside marriage.

This has always been a problem to greater or lesser degrees in the Church becuase the holy rule of celibacy perversely is used as a cover for homosexuals to "hide" there. The only place to be respectable and not married was the priesthood and the religious houses. St. Peter Damian's book to St. Leo IX "City of Gomorrah" details how this sin had ravaged most religious communities of his day. Also, I just read some letters and sermons by St. Bernard and he states that only a select handful of priests were not engaging in this abomination. I wish I could find it, but someone posted in another thread a while back a quote by a Saint admonishing homosexuals for always ambitiously seeking ecclesiastical offices.

Anyway, as Ecclesiastes says, "Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us."
Reply
#20
This is quite an unpleasant thread.  Several of the posts evidently assume that someone with a homosexual disposition is inherently ill-disposed, will inevitably give physical expression to his sexual desires and will by definition form part of a homosexual conspiracy.  That, in my view, is calumny.  There is no basis for those assumptions in experience or fact, and they do grave wrong to Catholics of a homosexual disposition, both religious and lay people, who live chaste and good lives.  I think several people posting here have sinned gravely against charity and the Eighth Commandment.

Given the tone of some of the posts, I should probably say that I am entirely heterosexual and have no axe to grind.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)