Monday, July 09, 2007

Toxicity

I thought I'd plumbed the depths when I discovered the Luther Burger, but here's something even more poisonous. I wish The Swan of Newark would go back to writing romantic novels and leave the murder mysteries to Chris Johnson.

The particulars of this incident are being discussed on StandFirm and MCJ, and probably other blogs too. I'll just note in passing that her scorn for the Kennedys and their fast-growing brood of children contrasts curiously with her own autobiography. In this post last year, she related some of the history of the women of HER family. To wit, her own mother, with 6 pregnancies, and her much-loved and admired grandmother, pregnant TWENTY times. Somehow she doesn't get around to mentioning that detail when describing the great feminist odyssey of her grandmother's departure from Portugal and life in the New World, though I suspect that some of that "liberation of the human spirit" her grandmother was seeking involved having babies. LOTS of babies.

Some of the posters on StandFirm are speculating that this all stems from the modern feminist/leftist/homosexual disdain for having children, but I don't think that's quite right. Kaeton has had children herself, after all. I think there are two main strains in her disgust.

First of all, there's the sheer fecundity of it all. Why, the woman is working on her fourth child! And she's still young! Just THINK how many she could have if something isn't done to stop her! Liberals can just tolerate one child, or maybe even two. After all, "The world must be peopled," as Benedict said (Benedict in 'Much Ado About Nothing', that is - not POPE Benedict. He'd never say something that ridiculous.) But like the Manichees, liberals really aren't into Life. Death is more their thing. And so disgust and contempt for large families, especially Catholic ones, has always been the mark of the shrivelled, sterile cult of the Left.

The other thing about large families is that everyone knows that they entail sacrifice. There's less money, there's less time, there's less of everything for ME, because it has to be given to THEM. And selfish people can't enjoy their selfishness when they have to witness other people making sacrifices. It feels like a personal reproach, somehow. And when this self-sacrifice is done in the spirit and in the name of Jesus, it's even more intolerable, because it's a reminder to the selfish of the example that they're pretending but failing to follow.

That brings us to the second thread; the explicitly Christian aspect of all this life-making. What really arouses her fury is not the method of birth control this family is using, but the involvement of God: 'letting "God decide" on how many children they will be blessed with and resigning themselves to gladly take whatever God gives them, giving God the praise and glory for "his plan for their life".'

Yes, we talk a lot about trusting God and all that, but when it comes right down to it, we don't really mean it. We want to hedge our bets, because we don't want to risk what might happen if God is the one making the decisions. It's too unpredictable - there could be a disagreement between me and God, and then what will I do? I'd have to surrender (and wouldn't THAT be a blow to my pride!) or outright tell God to get lost, and I can't quite hide from myself the fact that that would be wrong. So, I'll just evade the whole problem. I just won't involve God in the decision-making process at all. I'll keep all the control in my own hands, and give God a little nod from time to time, to let Him know I'm thinking of him. And when my decisions turn out particularly well, I'll even go through the little ritual dance of thanking and praising Him. After all, doesn't He deserve some acknowledgement for creating such a brilliant decider and chooser as myself?
Well, there's an ancient expression known among those who live and work in the desert: "Trust in God, and tie your camel tight."
What about that OTHER ancient expression, known among those who live and work in the desert:
THE LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

23 Comments:

Anonymous Toral said...

That was a superb post, Dr. M. You made all the points I had been thinking of but much more lucidly and elegantly.

Except for one I wanted to add: do people like Ms. Kaeton realize that the replacement rate for human societies is 2.1 childbirths per woman, and that setting a social standard of two children or less per mother, considering that not all women can or do have children, means that human society would become extinct? Mark Steyn has documented the forthcoming death of Europe in "America Alone". Spain, for example, has a fertility rate of 1.15 -- a rate from which no known human society has ever yet recovered. If we judge attitudes by their foreseeable consequences, then talk of a Liberal "death wish" is not hyperbole.

I don't know the order of birth in Ms. Kaeton's family, but has she ever paused for one second to mentally note that if her mother and grandmother had been ahead of their time and adopted her standard, she wouldn't be here?

I can tolerate the self-justifications of women who have chosen career over children if they show, not even guilt, but just a little ambivalence. But this post by Ms. Kaeton -- often I think that I have become desensitized and unshockable about Anglican church goings-on only to find that I have to raise my unshockability threhold to another level.

11:45 am  
Blogger The Bovina Bloviator said...

The excrescence from Ms. Kaeton along with Fr. Jake's recent temper tantrum on Stand Firm foreshadows what the future holds for the Episcopal Church: not extinction but something far more ignominious, irrelevancy. As the years go by Episcopalian rantings will increase with inverse proportion to the dwindling ranks but nobody will listen and nobody will care. Thirty years from now the Episcopal Church will be merely yet another oddity among the small protestant sects, less influential even than the Unitarian-Universalists and Christian Scientists, who for all their kookiness are nice people at least.

12:53 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

Wow,

I remember this very liberal family, who lived in Massachusetts and were very, very Catholic.

It seems to me that the family, at one time, had 9 children.

I think one of the boys became President of the United States!

So, I guess your "liberals don't like children" idea is, as usual,a pretty lame postulate.

Since I risk having someone run to my daddy and tell him that I'm a 'meanie,' I shant name the family that I have described above, because that family's name is the same last name of the offended family going after "The Swan of Newark."

The name alone would send some into epileptic fits, sort of like "Braxton's Lear."

However, as far as "The Swan of Newark" is concerned: I do believe she went over the line with her first post, but, as usual, you miss the point entirely.

The person she was speaking about seems to be overwhelmed with her life right now, so much so that she would neglect to pick up broken glass on the floor, with small children running around, because she just didn't have the strength to do so.

For some, like Andrea Yates for instance, popping out children, one by one, every year or so, because 'God mandated it' is not only ignorant, it's DEADLY. God also gave us all a brain (well, some of us, anyway). I highly doubt that God was the one that commanded Rusty Yates to impregnate his mentally ill wife, especially after it was clear that it was all too much for her.

Maybe before going around and stereotyping liberals as being 'pro death' take a look at some of your own 'ilk' of the "Jesus told me to have all of these children, even though I am not MENTALLY able to take care of them all."

It sure looks as if the 'toxicity' is evident on both sides, if your post is any indication.

It's all okay for you and your pals to malign those you ascribe the 'liberal' label. Nothing is off limits, when it comes to attacking them, but let one supposed 'liberal' give you a gut full of your own medicine, and you scream "toxicity!"

Even better, you run to "The Swan of Newark's" 'daddy bishop' and tell on her.

If you want to dish it out, be prepared to take it, as well.

Peace be with you,
Min

2:11 pm  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

The person she was speaking about seems to be overwhelmed with her life right now, so much so that she would neglect to pick up broken glass on the floor, with small children running around, because she just didn't have the strength to do so.

I read the post in question. The reason why she neglected to pick up broken glass and what not...was because she was pregnant but didn't know it. *Not* because she was or is a neglectful mom with a psychopathic amount of work to do.

Making libellous assertions on a mother's ability to mother, coupled with a not-so-veiled threat to call the authorities because Ms. Kaeton doesn't like Mrs. Kennedy's reproductive choices is beyond the pale.

I'm proudly one of the unwashed minions you and Ms. Kaeton hate. I have contacted the bishop of Newark—who is, supposedly, the bishop of my diocese. Considering my parish unfortunately falls within the aegis of this monsterous minister's reach, I feel it's totally within my rights.

Her being chair of the Standing Commission of the diocese is not a comforting presence for my parish—or for our priest.

Her words betray her own desires. My parish continuing to be under the toxic touch of ECUSA is neither good for our long-term health, nor for our short term goals in growth and evangelism.

I also find it strangely ironic that she who accuses pregnant mums as being Yeats clones is one of the more vocal proponents of legalised abortion in the United States. Proudly supporting the rights of moms to kill their unborn certainly sounds pro-death to me.

But what would I know? I'm a stupid, smelly, oppressor of my wife.

Puhleese.

-j

2:32 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"Making libellous assertions on a mother's ability to mother, coupled with a not-so-veiled threat to call the authorities because Ms. Kaeton doesn't like Mrs. Kennedy's reproductive choices is beyond the pale."

Spin, spin, spin. Remember that toy called "Sit and Spin?" enough said.

"I'm proudly one of the unwashed minions you and Ms. Kaeton hate. I have contacted the bishop of Newark—who is, supposedly, the bishop of my diocese. Considering my parish unfortunately falls within the aegis of this monsterous minister's reach, I feel it's totally within my rights."

Where did I say that I hate you? I don't even know you.

Unwashed minions?--ooh, Braxton's Lear award!!!

Where did I say anything about you being unwashed???

Amazing what self loathing does. Freudian slips abound.

"I also find it strangely ironic that she who accuses pregnant mums as being Yeats clones is one of the more vocal proponents of legalised abortion in the United States. Proudly supporting the rights of moms to kill their unborn certainly sounds pro-death to me."

Um, speaking of libelous claims. I hope you are not referring to me, as you know not one iota of my life, or what I believe.

"But what would I know? I'm a stupid, smelly, oppressor of my wife."

Again, where did I write that you are a stupid, smelly oppressor of your wife?

Andrea Yates had no business having more children, after she was diagnosed with psychosis, but her husband kept on, saying it was God's will. She ended up killing all of those children, because she was afraid Satan wanted them.

Interesting...

But if you keep insisting that you are a stupid, smelly oppressor, who am I to disagree?

(shrugging shoulders)

If you are sick of being under the "Swan of Newark" then, by all means, leave the ECUSA, or go to a different church.

That's what most people do when they become unhappy with the church they attend.

Like I've said before, I applaud Dr. Mabuse for becoming a Catholic, after becoming unhappy with the Anglican church.

Follow her lead. From reading what you write, I'd say a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church might do the trick for you. One where the woman wear long dresses, no make-up, and never cut their hair.

See? Problem solved!

Min

2:56 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"John J. O'Sullivan™ said..."

Oh, wait..you have your name trademarked?

That is hilarious. You are a brand?

Talk about pompousness...oh brother.

smelly, unwashed pompousness.

3:04 pm  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

Spin, spin, spin. Remember that toy called "Sit and Spin?" enough said.

You call it spin. I call it realising a threat. When someone says she was seriously considering calling CPS because someone...had children. Sorry, I call it as I see it.

Unwashed minions?--ooh, Braxton's Lear award!!!

I'm using Ms. Kaeton's own words, only mooshing them together into one awful little bite. It appears you've decided that it works well for you as well. Whatever. Sticks and stones and all that.

Where did I say that I hate you? I don't even know you.

If this is how you treat those you supposedly don't hate, I don't want to get on your bad side.

Um, speaking of libelous claims. I hope you are not referring to me, as you know not one iota of my life, or what I believe.

No, I am referring again to Ms. Kaeton, who has been a vocal supporter of ECUSA's role in the RCRC. I have no idea of your own predilections, nor did I make any claims of the same.

Andrea Yates had no business having more children, after she was diagnosed with psychosis, but her husband kept on, saying it was God's will. She ended up killing all of those children, because she was afraid Satan wanted them.

And this related to Mrs. Kennedy how? Talk about spinning things! She writes about how she gets overwhelmed as a parent at times (who doesn't?). So, therefore, she's going to murder all her kids. (?)

From reading what you write, I'd say a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church might do the trick for you. One where the woman wear long dresses, no make-up, and never cut their hair.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh? You know nothing of who I am, and what I believe. And anyone who does know me knows that my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Eucharist would discount me from both of those bodies.

And honestly, I think my wife looks better in skirts than she does in long dresses. I love the way she looks in makeup...I only wish her prep time was a bit shorter.

If you are sick of being under the "Swan of Newark" then, by all means, leave the ECUSA, or go to a different church.

My parish would love to, and I stick with my family. And, God willing, we will be moving from the dying diocese of Neark shortly. Considering we were not originally an ECUSA parish, it doesn't seem far-fetched. And, frankly, I don't see what ECUSA would do with our little lower-class/blue collar parish building.

Converting to Roman Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy means taking on the whole of the Church's teaching, which I cannot honestly do as of now. Whether that changes in the future is anyone's guess.

As far as the "™," I've had it for years. It isn't a sign of pomposity, but rather, collegiate stupidity. If was a brand, I'd be much richer, I'd suppose.

Peace and love right back at ya sister!

-j

4:46 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

Hi John (TM),

I guess I got confused by this:

"I'm proudly one of the unwashed minions you and Ms. Kaeton hate."

It's the "you" part that didn't make sense to me.

"If this is how you treat those you supposedly don't hate, I don't want to get on your bad side."

So, you always open friendly dialogue with "YOU and Ms. Kaeton hate," correct?

Yeah, that's a real 'friendly' opening.

Then, throw in things I never said, and claim I'm the 'angry' one. That's a good trick, too.

Like, I do not recall saying I hate you, others like you, or that you are part of 'unwashed minions' or whatever else you wrote, however you attribute that to me.

That's pretty interesting.

"I also find it strangely ironic that she who accuses pregnant mums as being Yeats clones is one of the more vocal proponents of legalised abortion in the United States. Proudly supporting the rights of moms to kill their unborn certainly sounds pro-death to me."

And women who are brainwashed by others--sometimes men, sometimes women--who ignore common sense, and truly believe that Jesus wishes them to reproduce and reproduce and reproduce, with no thought to how they pay for those kids' needs, whether the mother is even willing and mentally/physically able to keep churning out children like a machine; women, whose husbands ignore their wife's emotional and physical state, because they know what Jesus wants, until the woman breaks, mentally. Then, she's told that it is 'sin' and it's 'satan' that is making her weak, so then in order to save her children from 'satan' she drowns every one of them in a bathtub.

I'd call that 'pro-death' also. I think Kaeton's post was way over the top (something you keep ignoring, as I wrote it in my first response here), however what she said is no more nastier or meaner than what many of you--not all, but most--have said concerning anyone that you deem an 'evil liberal.'

But oh, when the tables turn, you are the biggest babies, period.

Pot, meet kettle.

5:46 pm  
Blogger Dr. Mabuse said...

Once and for all - Braxton's Lear is NEVER bestowed upon those who campaign and lobby for it. We're not like that sell-out Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. We can't be bought. Braxton's Lear only goes to those whose hammy self-absorption is complete and oblivious. People who keep angling for the distinction might as well know that they're wasting their time!

6:27 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"Once and for all - Braxton's Lear is NEVER bestowed upon those who campaign and lobby for it. We're not like that sell-out Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. We can't be bought. Braxton's Lear only goes to those whose hammy self-absorption is complete and oblivious. People who keep angling for the distinction might as well know that they're wasting their time!"

(bowing head) Yes Ma'am.

6:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone keeps overlooking the fact that Anne's post was made back in March, when she didn't realize she was pregnant. I don't understand why people like Rev. Kaeton are just now becoming alarmed. Subsequent posts seem to indicate that life has rocked along reasonably well in the Kennedy home. What was the point of digging up that post and making such an issue of it?
[I shudder to think what some people would have thought of the chaos in my house with ONE overactive child when I was a working single mother. Anybody wants to report us and take him away, though, will need to check with his wife. ;)]

Miss Sippi

7:34 pm  
Blogger C. Andiron said...

I'm not trying to excuse her, but maybe this is all part of the 'culture of anger'. It's becoming more fashionable and acceptable these days to forget about self control and rage and fume publicly (especially in America) - Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donald Trump, etc.
It's becoming an ugly world, Doctor. Everyone's turning into Daleks. Maybe you should fire up the TARDIS and get us all out of here before the planet is destroyed.

10:21 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Min O'Pause,

What I think you've missed is that Liz Kaeton is a very powerful person within the TEC, both within her diocese and nationally. This isn't some nobody blogger from an Anglican splinter group with a lot of spleen and a few malcontent followers. Furthermore, in one of her pseudo apologies, now only available in a cached version, she made a creepy veiled threat about getting the NY child authorities involved. That in my opinion is quite a bit worse than the original twisted fantasy she wrote about.

There certainly has been a lot of nasty stuff written by conservatives about progressives on various blogs, but I don't think even David Virtue has ever gone after a family member of a progressive. Much less someone wearing a collar. A line was really crossed here, but apparently only some are willing to see it. Tribal loyalties come first.

9:43 pm  
Blogger C. Andiron said...

"Once and for all - Braxton's Lear is NEVER bestowed upon those who campaign and lobby for it. We're not like that sell-out Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. We can't be bought. Braxton's Lear only goes to those whose hammy self-absorption is complete and oblivious."
Mt 6:16 always made me laugh. I think we can give Jesus the credit for inventing the Braxton's.

"People who keep angling for the distinction might as well know that they're wasting their time!"
O cursèd fate! Thou cruel fiend Mabuse! Wouldst that thou had pierced out mine eyes, than forever deny me the sweet balm of the heavenly Award, after which so many worthies have striven! I was completely unselfconscious when I wrote that, btw.

10:18 pm  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

Yeah, that's a real 'friendly' opening.

Considering you've already accused me of being a flat-earth young creationist who wishes to keep my wife continunally pregnant while wearing a burqua, I'd say my assessment is correct.

I'd call that 'pro-death' also.

I'd call it foolish, but I wouldn't call it pro-death. Natural Family Planning and the rantings of Michael Peter Woroniecki are two entirely different things. NFP, more than anything, allows both members of the

I think Kaeton's post was way over the top (something you keep ignoring, as I wrote it in my first response here)

Over the top would be making some of the assertions she uses in her post. Over the top might be blowing off some steam. But I'd dare say that what she did was way more than that. Threatening to call DYFS is a little different than writing a snippy rant.

however what she said is no more nastier or meaner than what many of you--not all, but most--have said concerning anyone that you deem an 'evil liberal.'

Really, so Drell and Christopher Johnson are threatening liberals now? Please do tell!

I've personally experienced three creeped-out moments, where those of the Tolerant Party of ECUSA have engaged in stalking behaviours. One of whom tracked down where I worked and began calling and e-mailing my bosses. (This is why my LiveJournal has been locked down for quite some time.)

And even with all of these things, Ms. Kaeton's post completely overstepped anything that happened to me. I've never had my family threatened by someone. And, even worse, it was never someone who is a major leader in my church. (One who, coincidently,

This is why I rarely if ever openly blog about the heretical party's designs on ECUSA. Frankly, I've had enough of their love and open-mindedness.

Will someone on the reasserter side snap like this? Perhaps. The one thing that we all share is a fallen nature. But I sure haven't seen it yet.

This event struck a nerve with me. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with justice. And, I guess according to you, if you're on the other side, you deserve what's coming to you. Just don't talk about it, lest you be seen as a whiner.

Whatever. Mrs. Kennedy already said that she's putting this behind her. But, at least, I hope she did contact a lawyer, if anything, to know exactly where she stands legally in case she has any further rabid haters from the left. I certainly would have.

-j

9:33 am  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

I need more coffee:

I'd call it foolish, but I wouldn't call it pro-death. Natural Family Planning and the rantings of Michael Peter Woroniecki are two entirely different things. NFP, more than anything, allows both members of the...

...married couple to fully participate in the creative action of God. Or, more often than not usually, to put off bringing another child into the world. Contraception completely cuts that off.

NFP is **not** saying "Oh well, we'll take as many as we can!"

Yeats had a serious major depressive illness. Doctors told her that she shouldn't have had another child. And if I was her priest, I'd have told her the same. God created doctors for a reason—to cure our broken bodies.

But just because you want to have many children (and both Ann and Matt are overjoyed at their new kiddie poo)...it doesn't put you into the Yeats class. Sorry.

-j

9:37 am  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"Furthermore, in one of her pseudo apologies, now only available in a cached version, she made a creepy veiled threat about getting the NY child authorities involved. That in my opinion is quite a bit worse than the original twisted fantasy she wrote about."

Thanks for your response.

As I stated previously, I think what she wrote was wrong, and it was written with an aggressive anger.

I also read her apologies, and I think she's right in saying that she could apologize forever, and it would never be good enough for those who just want more fodder.

What I would say is that Kaeton has been picked apart, sometimes daily, on many conservative blogs, and though I do not condone how her post was written, I do believe she is human.

Maybe all of the sniping that takes place, anytime she posts anything, finally got on her nerves. I'm sure it does happen, even with those who have important positions within the ECUSA, etc.


"There certainly has been a lot of nasty stuff written by conservatives about progressives on various blogs, but I don't think even David Virtue has ever gone after a family member of a progressive. Much less someone wearing a collar. A line was really crossed here, but apparently only some are willing to see it. Tribal loyalties come first."

Oh, yes, David Virtue is such a paragon of good taste.

Sort of like him going after Gene Robinson, by saying the following:

"Do you know that Gene Robinson’s website is linked by one click to 5,000 pornographic websites?"

Yes, how could we EVER compare Virtue with mean ole' Elizabeth Kaeton.

Even further, he lied and said that Robinson believes that Jesus was gay.

Whether you agree with Robinson's appointment as bishop, or whether you don't, insinuating that the man enjoys porn or that he called Jesus gay--neither is true--is just as damaging as what you feel Kaeton accomplished with what she said.

But for either side of the continuing war, maybe we should keep this verse of the Bible (yes, evil liberals sometime read the book) in mind:

Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him. Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to do evil, the false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers.

I think it's safe to say that Virtue and Kaeton, and the rest of us, have been guilty of several of the above.

Min
(who only belongs to the tribe of obstreperous mankind)

10:00 am  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"Considering you've already accused me of being a flat-earth young creationist who wishes to keep my wife continunally pregnant while wearing a burqua, I'd say my assessment is correct."

Oh, really? Please cut and paste where I called you a flat-earth young creationist who wishes to keep your wife continually pregant, while wearing a burqua?

You have quite an imagination. As anyone can plainly see, I did not call you any of the above.

You, on the other hand, referred to yourself with some unflattering adjectives.

"Really, so Drell and Christopher Johnson are threatening liberals now? Please do tell! "

Um, I haven't said one word about Drell (don't know who he is, sorry), or Christopher Johnson here.

"I'd call it foolish, but I wouldn't call it pro-death."

Yeah, so if it's abortion it's murder, but Andrea Yates was just 'foolish' when she killed everyone one of her children, from suffering under the weight of the 'conservative' religion, and her 'conservative' husband, who didn't listen, and didn't care, that his wife was too fragile to continue popping out children.

So, murder outside of the womb, due to 'natural family planning' becoming too much for certain women to deal with, is just 'foolish.'

Got it.

"Over the top would be making some of the assertions she uses in her post. Over the top might be blowing off some steam. But I'd dare say that what she did was way more than that. Threatening to call DYFS is a little different than writing a snippy rant."

Well, from what I read, the person in question seems to be very overwhelmed, if she is leaving broken glass on the floor, and writing that she does not have the strength to clean it up.

I'm not sure that is enough to call DYFS, but I would be concerned, period, about the person in question.

So, Kaeton apologized for what she said, and she apologized if it hurt the woman in question, but it doesn't seem to be enough for you--personally and collectively--because you want her head on a platter (so to speak).

I highly doubt that many of you really are shocked and this upset. This is just another thing you can jump on, as you try to rid Kaeton of her church and her standing within the ECUSA.

She's apologized. What more do you want? (I know the answer already)

I've had friends of mine, who have called DFACS, concerned about a neighbor's child, etc. There's no law against doing that, if there is a need. I'm not saying what Kaeton wrote was right at all, but she didn't 'threaten' anyone's family, period.

"I've personally experienced three creeped-out moments, where those of the Tolerant Party of ECUSA have engaged in stalking behaviours. One of whom tracked down where I worked and began calling and e-mailing my bosses. (This is why my LiveJournal has been locked down for quite some time.)"

Why would the person or persons to whom you refer, track down where you work, or call and email your bosses?

I mean, for whatever reasons, their actions are against the law--real stalking--however, what was it that got them so upset?

You can't tell me that they just came to your blog and then decided to stalk you.

I've experienced several 'creeped out' moments by some liberal, by some conservative, by some gay, by some not gay individuals.

It's really not a wise thing to stereotype everyone, John (TM).

Sorry that it happened to you, but you have already ascribed to me things I have not written at all.

"Yeats had a serious major depressive illness. Doctors told her that she shouldn't have had another child. And if I was her priest, I'd have told her the same. God created doctors for a reason—to cure our broken bodies."

Um, where does the husband's responsibility come into play in your above paragraph?

Her husband was the one ignoring doctors, and it was her husband who continued to get her pregnant. Her 'priest' (actually a pastor) told her to follow what her husband asked of her.

Your lack of including the husband in the mix, is precisely what Kaeton was talking about, albeit in the wrong way.

"But just because you want to have many children (and both Ann and Matt are overjoyed at their new kiddie poo)...it doesn't put you into the Yeats class. Sorry."

And I never said that, period. At the same time, if I heard about a woman who was posting that she was just too tired to pick up broken glass on a floor, where her toddlers toddle around, and her youngest child is only around a year old, but she's already pregnant again, it would make me think about what's going on.

That's all.

I love children. I wish I could have had children, but I could not, but that doesn't mean that I can't use common sense and realize that popping out children every year or so, is not healthy for the mother, nor the child, in some instances. I don't know if that is the case with the woman in question.

Min

10:51 am  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

Oh, really? Please cut and paste where I called you a flat-earth young creationist who wishes to keep your wife continually pregant, while wearing a burqua?

...

Follow her lead. From reading what you write, I'd say a Southern Baptist or Pentecostal church might do the trick for you. One where the woman wear long dresses, no make-up, and never cut their hair.


Not exact wording, but the last time I checked paraphrasing was still legal in the United States.

I highly doubt that many of you really are shocked and this upset. This is just another thing you can jump on, as you try to rid Kaeton of her church and her standing within the ECUSA.

As far as ECUSA goes, I really don't care. I only care about my parish. And the sooner we have no more connection with ECUSA and those who run it, the better. The organisation has two different religions—with two irreconcilable worldviews—fighting continually. The sooner everyone realises this and a peaceable settlement is made, the better for everyone, IMHO.

Whether you believe it or not, this really struck a nerve with me. I've read a lot of stuff that I've disagreed with in the past...this goes beyond the pale.

Your lack of including the husband in the mix, is precisely what Kaeton was talking about, albeit in the wrong way.

My lack of including the husband in the mix is precisely what happens when one tries to respond with a lack of sleep and not enough coffee.

And, if I may add, out of the two of the Yeats people, the one who was the most enamoured of the heretical rantings of their pastor was Andrea. Her depression certainly didn't help either. The husband was certainly an enabler...but the last time I checked, she killed her children—not her husband and not their wackadoo pastor.

So, murder outside of the womb, due to 'natural family planning' becoming too much for certain women to deal with, is just 'foolish.'

Murder is murder. But as I mentioned previously, just because someone has a large family does not insantly transport someone into the Yeats class. That seems to be Kaeton's insinuation, which is ludacris.

I mean, for whatever reasons, their actions are against the law--real stalking--however, what was it that got them so upset?

With one of them, it had to do with the following hateful statement: "I don't believe the church has the ability to marry two people of the same sex." That instantly transported me into the role of bigot™, which somehow meant that he was allowed to phone and e-mail my bosses.

One of the other weirdos was obsessed with my love of the language of the 1928 prayer book (and with my theological conservatism). Another weirdo had similar issues.

On my blog that I never really update anymore, most everything I posted had nothing to do with politics—I prefer writing about catholic devotion in the Anglican tradition. ECUSA internal workings merely depresses me.

So, Kaeton apologized for what she said, and she apologized if it hurt the woman in question, but it doesn't seem to be enough for you--personally and collectively--because you want her head on a platter (so to speak).

Someone in her position should be disciplined, end of story. And I'll say that if a "reasserter" did the same, s/he should be disciplined. This was conduct that no one who calls herself a Christian priest should have engaged in. Especially in her position. This has nothing to do with politics—it has to do with decency.

-j

11:13 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Min,

Very relevant Proverbs quote, thanks.

Virtue is an ordure, but he doesn't wear a collar. Rev. Kaeton does.

If Rev. Kaeton really contacted Rev. Kennedy's bishop and the NYS child authorities, then an apology is not enough. She needs to contact them again and retract everything she said or wrote, and undo whatever damage she caused. This is the part that makes me sick to my stomach - I personally don't care that EK writes like Ann Coulter, but when someone talks about getting the authorities to monitor your family life and look in on your children, a huge line has been crossed.

1:07 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"This is the part that makes me sick to my stomach - I personally don't care that EK writes like Ann Coulter, but when someone talks about getting the authorities to monitor your family life and look in on your children, a huge line has been crossed."

Did she really call the authorities, or did she just allude that she might?

I don't know. However, when stated that way, and that fact that she is in a position of power--somewhat--I can see what you mean.

If she was just saying that in her post, then there is no real crime. If she truly contacted the woman's priest and/or the authorities, then she should make it right.

Thanks,
Min

2:45 pm  
Blogger Min O'Pause said...

"With one of them, it had to do with the following hateful statement: "I don't believe the church has the ability to marry two people of the same sex." That instantly transported me into the role of bigot™, which somehow meant that he was allowed to phone and e-mail my bosses."

Oh lord. Didn't you prattle on and on about this on Christopher Johnson's Web site, too?

Isn't it time to move on? You seem consumed by this event.

Were you able to prosecute the offenders for stalking? Surely, you were. I don't mean to sound curt, but you really need to get some closure on it.

As far as you proving I called you names:

I stereotyped you, concerning the fact that what you believe and how you believe it, really sounds more fundamentalist than Anglican to me.

However, I did not call you a "flat-earth young creationist who wishes to keep my wife continunally pregnant while wearing a burqua,"

However, it sounds like that is what you truly feel about yourself, TM.

I can't judge who you are, etc. from a few posts. Sorry.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it all just blurs together at this point, sorry.

I do think it's interesting that you claim "lack of sleep" for continuing to blame Andrea Yates for getting pregnant.

The last time I checked it takes a penis and a vagina to make a baby, as many of your pals continue to point out to anyone who will listen.

Her husband was way more than an 'enabler.' But I think it's quite telling that he divorced Andrea and married another waif, who he is currently knocking up, with the same fervor as he did with Andrea.

All in the name of "Jesus."

Big families are great, if you are capable--mentally and physically--to deal with that large family.

Well, enough on this subject, as I don't want to cause an extra twitch in Mabuse's right eye, by continuing here.

However, it speaks volumes that she has allowed me to post at all.

Min

9:38 pm  
Blogger John J. O'Sullivan™ said...

Oh lord. Didn't you prattle on and on about this on Christopher Johnson's Web site, too?

No. I let him do the prattling. Frankly, he does it better than I do.

Were you able to prosecute the offenders for stalking?

For the most egregious offender, I was able to get a restraining order, which was more than I should have.

Stating simple theological thoughts shouldn't require defensive legal paperwork. Then again, so should being able to be a little frazzled in public without a so-called priest threatening to have people spy on you and threaten to have your children taken away.

I stereotyped you, concerning the fact that what you believe and how you believe it, really sounds more fundamentalist than Anglican to me.

That's hysterical. Actually believing in the stuff the church teaches is considered fundie. But then again, it really sounds like you're some flavour of Unitarian rather than anything Anglican. Although, ECUSA barely seems Anglican anymore, so it shouldn't surprise.

As far as "blaming" Andrea, I blame her for killing her children. I blame her husband for not being a husband and being more involved in his wife's health. (And he would have been if they were truly practising NFP.) I blame their pastor for being a cultish brainless douchebag. There's plenty of blame to be had.

But none of it had to do with a healthy (but slightly frazzled) lady priest who may not always have the house in tip-top shape at all times. Kaeton should be ashamed, but she probably isn't and she probably won't be, so it's useless to continue arguing.

-j

10:19 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home