On Milo Yiannopoulos

[Amppax]

A friend of mine wrote this post, in response to the controversy earlier this week regarding Milo Yiannopoulos. https://cityofmansoul.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/milo-a-bad-catholic/

An excerpt: 

Quote

The Catholic Church is home for all people who want to be there, regardless of their own “level” of sinfulness. The Church must never stop presenting the ideal human life offered to us by Christ, and spurring us on by means of the commandments. Neither can she ever throw out of her doors those who continually live in sin yet believe the Gospel. This openness should be extended to everyone, not just those we like or who think politically the way we do. As Catholics, we need to be able to balance the bold proclamation of the unedited Gospel and hospitality, understanding, and charity toward those who believe it but haven’t yet embraced it. If we do one or the other in isolation, we really do neither.

1

 

[Anomaly]

It's a pointless article.  For the most part, the author is making assumptions that if MY was of a different political leaning, "others" of a certain political leaning would have acted in a certain way. 

This assumptions of attitude, motivation for behavior, made for individuals and groups is tiresome.   It's essentially lazy stereotypes for identity politics, used to bash each other. 

MY seems like a hypocritical opinated person that is also playing at the media game for fame and fortune. 

He's as crappy a Catholic as proAbortion Pelosi.   I'll concede he isn't advocating for dehumanizing embryo people, but sheesh... 

But both seem adept at playing the opinion game in the media for fame, fortune, and influence. And both are pretty average in their Catholicity.   No shock there.   Good people find reasons to badmouth Mother Theresa's Catholicity. 

[Amppax]

1 minute ago, Anomaly said:

It's a pointless article.  For the most part, the author is making assumptions that if MY was of a different political leaning, "others" of a certain political leaning would have acted in a certain way. 

This assumptions of attitude, motivation for behavior, made for individuals and groups is tiresome.   It's essentially lazy stereotypes for identity politics, used to bash each other.

 

Not really. He's more so making an observation based on the way many have reacted to this whole situation, and to Milo in general. This article was in large part in response to a widely shared article (here) and the commentary that often accompanied it on social media (at least in our circles). 

Did you even read the article? His point was pretty much the same one you made... 

[Anomaly]

No, I didn't read the whole article.  It struck me from the get go that he was projecting and generalizing from the get go.  I read more and maybe would not call it pointless, but the writer isn't in a hurry to be clear on making his point.    

If we both are making the same point, then ten points for my House, Hufflepuff, for my succinctness less four points for my misreading.  

[dUSt]

My issue with Milo is not that he is a better/worse sinner than me, but that he comes off as proud of it. Maybe that's just blatant honesty, but it's not always good to be blatantly honest.

[Amppax]

6 minutes ago, dUSt said:

My issue with Milo is not that he is a better/worse sinner than me, but that he comes off as proud of it. Maybe that's just blatant honesty, but it's not always good to be blatantly honest.

 

I have plenty of issues with Milo; I feel about him roughly the same way Socrates feels about Mark Shea. But the point of posting this was not to take issue with him, but the all too human practice of extending charity or mercy to those with whom we agree, in ways we wouldn't for those with whom we disagree. Of course, that was largely the topic of last Sunday's Gospel, it's no real credit to us if we're good to only those who are our friends, etc. etc. 

[Anomaly]

The messy problem is knowing the difference between tolerance of human foibles that one may be working on or the human foibles that are celebrated and defended in the context of Catholicism? 

Milo may be a practicing homosexual, but does he say it's okay?  Is it okay to practice and in what forms or activities?  Does Pelosi defend abortion as okay in all instances, or the Church can't inflict its moral opinion within a secular legal context?

There are no clearly defined or simple borders where mercy or justice begin and end. (At least for most people.)

[Amppax]

Of course, that's an important distinction. 

[Maggyie]

I agree that there is a problem with extending mercy JUST to those whose sins we "like" or because we agree with them on other, nonessential matters. How many people defend MY as a Catholic but get all giddy about Nancy Pelosi taking the Catholic label. In fact, Catholic is a name you receive in your baptism, from there, you are either a good one or a bad one, but nothing can change that you are part of God's family now. 

[Ice_nine]

who the hell is this guy?

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

who the hell is this guy?

Milo? Pretty prominent internet personality, very controversial. Surprised you haven't heard of him. 

[Ice_nine]

I checked him out on wikipedia. Nothing seemed familiar. Has there been any recent controversy that prompted this particular thread?

[HisChildForever]

On February 23, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Anomaly said:

The messy problem is knowing the difference between tolerance of human foibles that one may be working on or the human foibles that are celebrated and defended in the context of Catholicism? 

Milo may be a practicing homosexual, but does he say it's okay?  Is it okay to practice and in what forms or activities?  Does Pelosi defend abortion as okay in all instances, or the Church can't inflict its moral opinion within a secular legal context?

There are no clearly defined or simple borders where mercy or justice begin and end. (At least for most people.)

I could have sworn I read that he is not practicing, and that he is actually opposed to homosexual relations. Which makes this man more bizarre to me because he seems to "play up" his sexual orientation.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I checked him out on wikipedia. Nothing seemed familiar. Has there been any recent controversy that prompted this particular thread?

Yeah his book deal was recently canceled over controversial remarks he made about pedophelia. He has refused the media's interpretation of his comments. Frankly I'm not even sure what the comments were, I really didn't read into it.

[Socrates]

I admit I knew nothing at all about this guy prior to the recent brouhaha over him being invited/dis-invited to be the key-note speaker at that C-PAC conference.  From what (little) I've heard, I'm not much impressed by him, and in general I have little use for the so-called "alt-right," so I don't have much emotional involvement here.  It seems he's more of an un-pc provocateur than a conservative in any meaningful positive sense of the word, but that's getting into another discussion.

Regarding the article, it seems like he's as much a CINO as any number of liberal "Catholics."  I wouldn't say the Church should "close its doors" to him or others of his ilk, but part of being a faithful Catholic is at least making some effort to reform one's life and turn from sin.  I can't judge his soul, obviously, but from what I've heard, apparently he very openly, shamelessly and proudly flaunts his homosexual "lifestyle."  If he in fact attends mass, I'd say his pastor should not give him communion until he publicly repents of his sinful "lifestyle."  (This principle should apply to all in ongoing grave public sin, whether "gay," "straight" or what have you.)

That would apply equally whether he were a rock-ribbed conservative or a Hillary-loving, bleedin' heart liberal (though the latter might involve other sins).  I can't speak for others, as I've never really bothered to read or listen to any fans of his.

But at least Milo apparently acknowledges his lifestyle is "bad" in the eyes of the Church, and does not - as so many do - try to justify his actions as being in accord with the Church nor insist that the Church change its moral teachings.  That's a start.