"I worry about how blogs touch the reputations of the journals that host them. I worry about First Things."
Bottum does well to worry. The latest addition to the First Things' blog is so incredible that it defies a clear assessment: is it plain malicious or just idiotic?
Let us assume, for charitable reasons, that it is idiotic.
Idiotic line # 1:
"I don't mourn the impending loss to the Church of lacy prelates at 'ritualist churches' (in Vatican City or elsewhere) curling their pinky fingers and going goo-goo over this or that to-die-for arrangement of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli."No, that is not what gay priests do, FT. They are not "lacy" nor "ritualist", but self-centered "liturgists", bent on "creating" liturgical "experiments". They enjoy "remodeling" churches, destroying altars, making up sacraments as they go along; they love many children around the altar, altar servers of all ages and of both sexes; they adore clown masses, happy-clappy audiences, laughter and "reflection"; they hate "rubricism" and order -- and that is quite predictable, as the image they have of themselves, the "gay" image, is one based in open rebellion, disorder, and warfare against the Divine order.
They do not care about "Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli"; they enjoy "contemporary" music, bonding with the "sounds" of "Mother Nature"; the only liturgical arrangement they favor is one which involves dance and choreography; they adore facing the people, because an essential part of their disorder is the need to be seen and "loved" by all; they hate authentic beauty and Tradition, because both remind them of an orderly present and of an orderly past, which would never tolerate their liturgical shenanigans. And they love Andrew Sullivan and even call him "uncle"...
Idiotic Line # 2:
And the FT contributor does not stop there. She adds:
"Now, I don't know whether [Saint] Aelred was gay or not—mostly because the concept of defining oneself in terms of sexual orientation was unknown to medieval people—but I've always thought: So what if he was (or would be, by modern standards)?"Right... There are no "modern standards" of sodomy and effeminacy. Buggery is buggery at any age. How dare one call a saint a "gay man"("by modern standards"..."so what if he was?"). Was it that he felt like acting on his buggering desires, but held them back? This is what one says about a holy man 850 years after his death? He is not here to defend himself from such slander... [Read this short book review by Father James Buckley, FSSP]
Idiotic line # 3:
"Many gays nowadays talk about their sexual identity as a "gift fromGod." Well, if that's so—and it may well be so..."
Perhaps because being a "gay man" is not slanderous... since the FT contributor herself admits that the "gay identity"..."may well be" a"gift from God".
Now the slander was directed against the Almighty... which is called blasphemy.
Yes, Bottum is right to worry about the First Things' blog.