"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"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.”
"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."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
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
Well, so much for my 4-year-old’s Halloween costume plans.
Note, this is the Earth 2 Green Lantern rebooted, not the Hal Jordan version.
The whole thing makes me ill.
How much longer, Oh Lord, will You tolerate, before it’s over for good? “Let those who scandalize a little one such as these, have a millstone hung around their neck and toss them into the ocean.” (Yes I know it’s a paraphrase.)
Papabile is correct. This is the Green Lantern from Earth-2, Alan Scott. Carol Ferris is long-time love interest to Silver Age Green Lantern Hal Jordan. Still, it’s despicable.
I was annoyed at the movie portrayal of Spiderman, as such a wimp. But to make one of the old time super heroes gay is beyond the pale.
If I had a kid into comics, this would be the end for him, at least on my dime.
I hate that these comic books, a mainstay of once wholesome interest for young boys (and even girls! My mom loved Spiderman) is now being hijacked by the gay agenda. Comics are now medium to violate the consciences and minds of the young. How Sad. Will the secular police show up and use military force to make us be “tolerant” of one another eventually? Well I will never let my kid buy Green Lantern, EVER!!! It’ll be Batman and Superman for us! At least Lois and Clark are in a monogamous marriage (or will they incorporate co-habitation/polygamous sex into the mix too?)
Anyways, my real nagging question: Why the heck this most people think Robin and Batman would be gay?
Young Canadian: As I previously posted there is quite of bit of academic literature around the topic of homoeroticism and the Batman/Robin franchise. A simple Google search or Wikipedia search will bring it all up.
I was wrong on this one . . . I thought it would be Aquaman.
I suppose the next the pole should be on who he’s going to marry?
frjim4321: As I previously posted there is quite of bit of academic literature around the topic of homoeroticism and the Batman/Robin franchise.
That it exists doesn’t make it true. I had a college prof who saw symbolism in every word, right down to the indefinite articles. The gay agenda has been looking for rationales for decades, and you can see the fruit of it (pun intended) in the innuendo found in many wikipedia articles on public people. At least on those whose status is deemed a plus for the gay front.
“How disappointing that they did this to a character with a back story.”
All gay people have a backstory. Usually it’s very complicated. It’s a daily struggle of living what feels like an inauthentic life.
I like this exercise: imagine what it would be like if you lived in a world were homosexuality were the norm – you can call it Obamaland if you like. Homosexuality is the norm, and you are heterosexual. You were told you were intrinsically disordered, with this attraction to the opposite sex being something which predisposes you to sin. Acting on this attraction is a sin (and fantasies too – lust in the heart). Plus being heterosexual is socially unacceptable in a world of homosexual norms. Yet you desperately want to not sin, to fit in, to be normal. Oh, and you no longer have what feels like a logical option – you cannot use your celibacy and become a priest, because the heterosexual inclination is a bar to ordination.
How hard would it be for you to convince yourself you could marry someone of the same sex? And that you would never act on your desires for a loving relationship with the opposite sex? (Loving relationship? That’s laughable. It’s a relationship based on sinful lust.) You might be able to do it for a while. You are probably not happy, though. (Not that happiness matters.)
Anyway, some people start to ‘come out’ as heterosexual. These sinful hets are becoming less ostracized. Heterosexual activity is no longer illegal, and these heterosexuals can even now serve in the military. You even see greater social acceptance for opposite-sex attraction. Six states (plus DC) have opposite-sex marriage. Your president comes out in favor of opposite-sex marriage. With all of this, you are tempted to join their number. The thought of living your life as a celibate is harder to reconcile with greater social acceptance of opposite-sex relationships.
That’s where we are for gay people in the US now. Yes, the natural law theology does not match in this hypothetical, but I think it is a good exercise to understand what it must be like for someone gay then and now.
Anyway, I too thought it would be Aquaman.
Is there a large homosexual comic-book readership? Why do this?
Well, I picked Green Lantern – just the wrong one.
Giuseppe, part of the character’s backstory in this case is that he was married twice – first in the early-mid 1960’s (she died) and then since 1985.
This is part of a somewhat extensive reboot. In addition to the homosexual angle, he’s young again and they’re changing the source and characteristics of his powers.
Young Canadian, I haven’t read too much of that line in the last several months, but I believe they rebooted the Lois & Clark marriage clean out of existence.
As Frank Miller, author of Batman Year One: pointed out in the book’s commentary section that such ‘academic studies’ are simply BS.
The facts are Batman and Robin as well as many superheroes were made colorful and friendly and portrayed as such back in the day for a vey simple reason: They were INTENDED FOR YOUNG CHILDREN (Primarily Boys) TO READ AND ENJOY AND HAVE SILLY FUN WITH!
The ‘academic view’ i.e. nutcase academics with an agenda read too much into things that were never there nor intended. The homoerotic angles are simply revisionist history with no bearing on reality. But this is the sort of thinking we can expect from anyone who rejects obvious natural law.
I understand what you were trying to convey with your analogy. However, leaving aside moral issues for a moment, the major problem is that you (deliberately?) neglected to note that the homosexual activists are not content to win tolerance. Rather, no matter what they accomplish they will never be satisfied. First, tolerance. Then acceptance. Then equal benefits. Then legal marriage. Then constant indocrination of the young. Then, then, then, without end! Enough already! It is time for the homosexual community to learn to live and let live.
P.S. I admit my guess was correct. I figured it would be Green Lantern, although I assumed the original one since I was unaware of an Earth 2 version.
Green Lantern, sure, why not.
I must say, as an avid comic book fan (although mostly Marvel), I don’t know which bothers me more, that they made this character gay, despite in previous backstories being married and having two kids (one of whom was gay himself), or the fact that it was clearly done solely as a publicity stunt to gain the support of a mostly liberal readership (college-aged people).
I can live with gay characters in the stories I read (although the upcoming X-Men issue centering around one of the character’s gay wedding is probably a no-go), it doesn’t bother the story to me, and in honesty, it is often not pushed as propaganda. Its simply a fact of the life. It also never surprised me that several x-men were made gay. It has always been a book about stereotypes and bigotry. Regardless of our views on gay marriage, we do need to recognize that many were and are outright bigoted on the issue. Past that the romantic issues really only come up as tangents to the story line, in pretty inoffensive ways.
What I can’t live with is when, as in this case, it is a publicity stunt, it is to push an agenda, which they see as being popular. By saying “they felt it was the right time to do this”, what they really mean is “We can make money off this”. Its the same reason why there have been vampire and zombie stories in recent years. This one just happens to be a political/moral choice as opposed to an aesthetic one.
It was either the Green Lantern or Flash. None of the others are addressed with Roman Numerals to distinguish different persons with the same identity. So I guess it would have come down to either the lamest (oldest) Green Lantern or the lamest (oldest) Flash. And Flash — I voted for Flash, but thinking the newest one — doesn’t have a cape.
Gay men, now again objectified, but this time even more!
For what it’s worth, the original claims of homoeroticism in the relationship of Batman and Robin were not made in support of any “gay agenda” but rather as a criticism of the whole genre of comic books. It was the anti-comics “Seduction of The Innocent”by Frederic Wertham in 1954 that first claimed there was a homosexual subtext to the stories, but not in support of such a thing. Rather, it was given as a reason that comic books should be banned. He also claimed that Wonder Woman’s strength and independence from men meant she was a crypto-lesbian.
Giuseppe, I don’t understand your example. I will admit that I of low intellence and cursed with a public school education, but I have to ask. How do they breed on Obamaland? Is it man-man and woman-woman? If isn’t, why would being heterosexual not be the norm? Assuming that they breed homosexually, the residents of this world would consider the relationship of a man and woman to be equal to bestiality, since they will, more then likely, consider themselves to be 2 different species.
Hey, remember when Superman died?
Hey, remember when Superman died?
Which time? That’s like asking, “Remember when Lex Luthor had an evil plan?”
Yeah. Sold a lot of comic books.
Lex Luthor sells the comics? Wow.
@Giuseppe: Centristian also had a comment a while back about how homosexuals are doomed never to be able to fall in love and get married (only the one or the other; although I’m not certain if this is true, if only because I’ve seen people and heard of people getting over stranger and worse things, let’s grant that for all we know he has a point). While I can see the point in it being difficult, I can’t imagine it being all that much more difficult than a real-life parallel we have as Catholics: lay single vocations. Yes, that’s a vocation. No, nobody talks about it. But you don’t marry and therefore have no Catholicly legitimate focus for any sexual urges or even romantic attractions/interest you happen to have — which you likely will. (You might ask, “If I’m romantically interested in someone of the opposite sex, don’t I just marry and then this doesn’t apply to me?” The answer is no, not “just”; it’s quite possible you’ll be attracted to plenty of people in ways that are far more than merely erotic, but still nothing will work out or, if you’re particularly discerning, you may recognise that you nonetheless don’t have a vocation with them.) No, there’s no legal issues to fight over in that case, but it parallels on a more important point: the only answer is grace.
Anyway, I suspect PostCatholic happens to be right at this particular moment: making characters gay and rebooting/retconning/whatevering comic book serieses is done to make bucks, and doesn’t really mean much else, whatever they may say to the contrary.
The Ubiquitous wrote:
So I guess it would have come down to either the lamest (oldest) Green Lantern or the lamest (oldest) Flash. And Flash — I voted for Flash, but thinking the newest one — doesn’t have a cape.
Respectful disagreement: I have always thought that the original Green Lantern was the coolest Green Lantern ever. He had the most awesome costume, that’s for sure.
And technically, the Alan Scott who is now gay is not really the original one. The original one fought alongside the Justice Society in World War II, on the parallel Earth that would be later designated “Earth-2” in the 1960s. By the 1980s he had a son and daughter who became superheroes in their own right; his daughter was later killed. That Green Lantern — the original Alan Scott — ceased to exist in DC’s latest reboot. The new Alan Scott / Green Lantern will be gay.
If this sounds confusing, think of the newest Star Trek movie. It’s a reboot: the characters are similar to the old ones, but they aren’t the same. In other words, you are free to reject the newest Star Trek movie or the newest reboot of Green Lantern and continue to hold the old versions in high regard!
“How do they breed on Obamaland? Is it man-man and woman-woman? If isn’t, why would being heterosexual not be the norm?”
*coughs* Hate to say this, but Star Trek already went down that road, at LEAST 14 years ago. During one episode, Commander Riker has a relationship of sorts with a woman on a particular planet. Leaders from the planet are VERY unhappy with both her and him because..well, on this planet, they reproduce “asexually”. One scene shows the plants they use for the purpose, though they never quite explain precisely ow this happens physically. ..Or if they do, I don’t remember.
It’s not quite an open condemnation of the heterosexual viewpoint, but you get the distinct impression that we shouldn’t have anything to say agin homosexual behavior.
*sigh* As I recall, that was the beginning of the end of my awe and admiration for Star Trek.
Well, long before that there was the scene in Quark between Ficus and Princess Libido, though that did nothing to diminish my awe and admiration for Quark.
But yes, I remember that scene with Riker, who, not incidentally, seems to have been aroused by anything that could walk on its hind legs. It ticked me off, but my awe and admiration of Star Trek were already on shaky ground at best.
Then, of course, there was the transmute, Gene/Jean….