He was a conservative on morals, that is probably why. I felt the same way.
Plus he had a penchant for style:)
Posted on 03/12/2014 9:51:39 AM PDT by Repent and Believe
Tagline
Dolan was appointed by BXVI. That said, Dolan actually had a reputation for orthodoxy before he got to NY, although he was always probably more Dem than Catholic.
It could be that he thinks his stupid responses are what the Pope wants, although I honestly don’t think that’s the case. But it certainly saves Dolan any effort. He can go out and schmooze with the gays, drape his arm around Cuomo or De Blasio, and feel he’s just the coolest bishop in the universe.
I am not a Roman Catholic and even I miss Benedict XVI.
This author’s language is atrocious. Why even post it?
Definitely not Christian language at all.
Brilliant piece. Dolan is truly vile, and Francis is not much better. The Vatican is laying the seeds of destruction, and Francis’ nauseating deference to Muslims makes clear who will be the victors in the end.
You and I agree on this. Horrid language.
I won’t even read past the first sentence.
**The coarse language is unfortunate, but necessary. **
Language like this is never necessary.
That’s part of her charm.
Gives you a good excuse to ignore Barnhardt's message.
That which would be used to subsidize depravity and abomination does not "belong to Caesar".
it depends on the people.
for example, no apostle after Jesus’ death was corrupt. Peter wasn’t CORRUPT he was stupid concerning putting the law back in for the gentiles but Paul straightened him out.
Even if it’s atrocious that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.
Would you prefer she stuck to the “Will and Grace” characterization of male homosexuals?
I agree this article is very graphic and I made the mistake of viewing it while having lunch...Well lunch over.
I have to say the author is making a point and one that many forget...the ‘act’ of sodomy is an abomination to God and God says so in Scriptures. We are constantly fed by the MSM videos of “loving” gay “couples” hand holding and getting “married.” There is an absence of the ‘real deal’ to the ‘practices’ and behaviors. The author clearly points this out as did Phil Robertson a few months ago.
I suggest he run and read Luke 16.
There’s nothing new under the sun. A reading of Numbers re: Korah, Dathan and Abiram and a perusal of Balaam may be in order as well.
As is said in Psalms...
Let another take his office.
But hey, we wouldn’t expect Satan to bother with the usual heathen on the street if he could get a bigger catch. We are all human, with free will. We have all sinned, fall short and are working out our salvation.
Remember, re: letters to the churches, the corruption was from inside, Christians, not outsiders. Pride must be checked when offering correction... with prayer and humility, lest we pile sin on sin. You correct your addict brother, not because you’re higher or better than him, but because he’s hurting your father/family, giving bad example/corrupting his other/younger siblings and ruining his soul... and others through what he does, rather he realizes it or not, is ready to receive it or not.
We all have to answer to the Lord.
Trust in God and pray for him and all of us.
Seems to be the post-modern approach of Dolan and Pope Francis. God gave us standards, He had them written down. We are not to judge others based on 'our righteousness' but we are to present God's Law as part of Gospel preaching in order to expose the sinner as (in daniel1212's tag line) damned+destitute. Our job is to do what Jesus Christ did in Luke 18 where he confronts the rich young man with the Law and after showing the man he was not worthy according to the Law, that only with God are all things possible. The first element of Gospel preaching is to bring folks up the rocky path of Mt Sinai and then, only then once they realize they are lacking according to God's Law, we present the deliverance of Mt Zion (Christ's death and resurrection).
100% agree. And Phil Robertson was condemned for doing close to what this author did in her piece.
He was a conservative on morals, that is probably why. I felt the same way.
Plus he had a penchant for style:)
You know, Ann Barnhardt needs to stop mincing words, being so craftily subtle, and just tell us what she thinks. Really, it’s so hard to discern what she’s saying here with all the subtle word play and nuance.
Then how do we fund something that we agree upon, (example: Defense) but not stuff we disagree with (example: perversion)?
IRS takes it all & goes after anyone not paying the whole amount.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.