Father Raymond J. de Souza says, "I cheer for Tebow in part because his success annoys grumpy people who think Christians should require special permission to participate in public life."
Father de Souza seems to have no qualms violating the Catholic 8th commandment, since of course there is no one who thinks "Christians should require special permission" to do anything at all compared to non-Christians. And it's hardly grumpy to think that Tebow's repeated ostentatious public display of faith is a little over the top. After all, doesn't Matthew 6:6 say something relevant? Or is pointing that out considered "grumpy"? Of course, if Tebow were a Jew or a Muslim, I bet Father de Souza would have something else to say.
Father de Souza says nothing at all about Tebow's support of Focus on the Family. I guess supporting anti-gay bigots is the Christian thing to do.
De Souza's pleasure in annoying secularists is hardly unique to him; it's a commonplace among conservative Christians. Annoy an atheist, annoy a liberal, annoy a gay person: these are all examples of virtuous conduct to be extolled. That's what Jesus would say. I reckon he would, I dunno.
Addendum: Father de Souza's website here. No surprise - he doesn't allow comments
One wonders what "Father"* de Souza would say if a Muslim player rolled out a rug and prayed to Mecca after each play? Or prayed to Mother Earth?
Tebow's sanctimony certainly does seem to contradict Jesus sermon about public prayer--but, leave it to "sophisticated" Christians to ignore the plain language of the bible in favor of a more tortured reading that, not surprisingly, agrees with what they want it to say.
As to comments, I'm not surprised that he doesn't allow them, seeing as how the Catholic church is not a democracy. What the peons think doesn't matter. Orders for the masses come from on high, not the other way around. However, he does list his email address: firstname.lastname@example.org --It is right there on his "About" page. But, emails won't clutter up his nice blog with any public challenges to his faulty reasoning.
*Seems ironic for an organization that demands celibacy to call people who can't be fathers, or even husbands, by that term.
I see this email address in the about section:
"but, leave it to "sophisticated" Christians to ignore the plain language of the bible in favor of a more tortured reading that, not surprisingly, agrees with what they want it to say."
Well, yeah. If they just took it as written, they have to do stuff they don't like.
Nothing to say here, except to note that the captcha for this post was "trywoo"!
Post a Comment