"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
-
Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
- Anonymous
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" -
HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
- Comment
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
- Comment
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on
Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-
Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at
1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in
comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."-
Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. -
- Mark Shea
I think the question should be whether the civil authorities should recognize gay unions as they do heterosexual marriages. Most people, even social conservatives, don’t care what people do on their own time (so to speak). In that sense, gay “marriage” should not be illegal. It is not illegal for two men or two women to unite themselves in some way or another. But we balk at our culture and laws being re-defined to accommodate such a small minority of society and equating such unions with marriage as man has always understood it. We also balk at being required to be complicit in or to approve of such immoral activity.
While I am not foolish to think the WSJ as socially conservative, I am nonetheless surprised by the lopsided stats we see right now in this poll.
Peggy, that’s not the case. What two people do on their “own time” has an effect on the outside world. That’s been the understanding for all religions for all time. The fact that “gay marriage” is even an issue proves that what happens in private has an affect on the public.
Legality has little to do with morality. Gay acts used to be illegal in the US. Now they are legal. Bestiality, ephebophilia, and incest are currently illegal, but the same logic that was used to justify the legalization of gay acts could be used to legalize these. So long as the foundations of law are public opinion, and public opinion can be manipulated, anything is possible including recriminalization.
I’m not at all surprised by the results. The logic is outlined in Humanae Vitae and Chapter 7 (The Eternal Revolution) of Orthodoxy by Gilbert K. Chesterton. Once the foundation of law is no longer God, and private actions are declared to be irrelevant to the public, all you’re left with is “progress”, or rather (d)evolution towards animalism.
since you have posted this no has gone up 2% a small increase but its something
poll wasn’t available when I went to see results
Nevermind. It’s back up. 18% say No. What a sad commentary on our dismantling of the institution of marriage.
And the lemmings keep heading toward the cliff…….
I went but the poll wasn’t up. Just the comments.
Lemmings do not jump off cliffs. That was a famous and horrific movie stunt organized by Walt Disney crews.
Same with civil unions or homosexual marriage. Both are made up by sinful people who want to push acceptance of their lifestyles onto the rest of us. God have mercy on us. Latest is that there may be grounds for impeachment of potus for contravening an existing law. I am sure he doesn’t care.
I hate to sound like a pessimist, but the war over GLBT “rights” is over and we Christians have lost. Unless Our Lord acts in a direct way to change things, there is no putting the toothpaste back into the tube. :-(
Anilwang,
I am sorry to have sounded too libertarian. Yes, I do believe that gay activity hurts the moral fabric and stability of society. Probably some level of gay activity may have always occurred, though was probably very minimal and not in the open in societies. It was certainly not approved in most societies. The openness and push to obtain societal approval of gay activity are what are really causing the harm to society today.
Dr. Eric, I hope you’re being a pessimist. But I do agree that it will be hard to make gay activity against the law again.
The WSJ poll is disappointing–and contrary to how the public have voted every time they got the chance. And some readers are noting it doesn’t seem to be available. Hmmm..
The WSJ, of course, asks the wrong question. I suggest this one, “Does any legislature have the authority to declare homosexual acts, by definition constitute Holy matrimony?”
It’s no longer “private” if such people can legally adopt children.
That constitutes child abuse. Period.
Somebody is freeping the poll the wrong way in a big way. Hardly surprising.
Amen Athelstan! It’s especially wrong if two men adopt a male IMHO.