Posted on 02/16/2018 3:01:15 PM PST by heterosupremacist
Viacom has a serious problem on its hands: Jake Weisman, the co-creator and writer of the Comedy Central show, “Corporate” (he also stars in the show), has threatened to “bring the whole system down.” He was referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
Weisman made his threat yesterday on Twitter. His incendiary comment was in response to a news release I wrote about the February 14th episode of “Corporate.” In it, the Eucharist was obscenely mocked. A woman dressed like a nun was shown seductively sucking a cross-shaped popsicle. She remarked, “My favorite flavor—the blood of Christ.” It doesn’t get much dirtier than this.
It must also be said that the filthy responses that supported Weisman’s tweet cannot be reprinted here—some were aimed directly at me.
In one sense, I am happy Weisman made this threat. While Hollywood was not always a bastion of anti-Catholicism, in the past half-century it has certainly evolved into one. Let’s be honest: If Jews were portrayed the way Hollywood portrays Catholics, it would be labeled the premier anti-Semitic industry in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
I don’t get it? The Pope is more liberal than Hollywood? If I was Catholic, the Pope would make me become a non Catholic and rather quickly...
“.....has threatened to “bring the whole system down.” He was referring to the Roman Catholic Church.”..
Where’s the FBI when they have a potential Cruz?
The Pope is only a small part of the Church. He isn’t even mentioned in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. The Church is the Body of Christ, of which we hope and pray faithful Protestants and Orthodox are a part of too. It’s an entity of humanity, Scripture, tradition, history... beyond any one human.
Should one small part of the Church make you leave it?
Hope some 250 lb goombah named Vito catches up with this little creep & defends Catholicism with fists of righteous fury.
I have great admiration for Catholics that can tolerate this Pope. I couldn’t
A Christ hating jew. How suprising.
That’s the same network that edited images of Mohammad out of South Park, right?
Bergoglio is already doing that for him.
Cowards!
I’m sure this puke bemoans intolerance for Islam. And intolerance in general. Except for intolerance for the things he hates.
They probably said something nice about Donald Trump. That’d be enough for nick.
Nick. Your posts are awesome.
Catholic League seems to be useless. Catholic League is just overwhelmed with fires to put out. A Catholic in SF gets fired? “Oh well, that’s life.” Wrong. Take heart: The Lord is taking notes.
I've gone through this many, many times. Donohue does not believe in Catholic teaching on homosexuality. He's be a pro-homosexual civil union supporter since at least 2002. I've pointed that out to Freepers many times since then. One of the publications he said it in SF Faith is no longer online.
In 2004 or 2005, a Freeper who was a donor to Catholic League, didn't believe me. I told him to call up. He did and was shocked by what they told him. Sorry. I have no respect for that organization.
Besides being against Catholic teaching he does nothing for the Catholic Church. Acting like Al Sharpton doesn't work for him. He gets Catholic issues ignore, nit promoted.
Pedo-priest-gate and the current zany pope are enough fodder to keep bad humorists going for years.
Weisman is probably an abuser.
Are we talking about recognizing deviant sexual relations? Or are we talking about defining right and duties of cohabiting persons whether or not there is any sexual involvement at all. As I understand it, civil unions spell out rights and duties which might pertain to a mother and her adult disabled son living together, three celibate nuns, an elderly woman and her longtime best friend/caregiver, etc, two men that sleep together, two men that don't.
Cohabitation agreements exist now, they are enforceable now. Cohabitation agreements do not care about love, do not care about methods of orgasm, do not even care about number of people. (Thanks to FReeper longtermmemory for this info).
Here is a freebie cohabitation form: http://www.ilrg.com/forms/cohab-agreement.html
There are even websites that will put it together for you: http://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/cohabitation-agreement/?ldcn=cohab
There might --- I don't know --- be some justification for civil unions due to deficiencies in cohabitation agreements that ALREADY exist. I don't know.
However my point is, that there are legitimate reasons to OK civil unions and/or cohabitation contracts, not for OK'ing perverse sexual liaisons, but just for regulating responsibilities and property between or among people who have formed or intend to form longterm households.
Rush Limbaugh supports this, as I recall.
El Rushbo is not the Pope, of course, but I think the Pope, too, supports civil unions which do not reference sodomy.
Which STILL doesn't make it specifically Catholic, one way or the other.
But it does make it, in terms of prudential choices, a matter of legitimate debate, without signifying that one is giving a respectful nod to arrangements predicated upon sodomy.
Excellent reply, t y 4 posting.
My two farthings: About 17 years ago, I was hired by a global corporation. During our orientation, we were told of our options regarding healthcare/life insurance policies, etc.
We could choose the option ‘significant other’ (man/woman/trans/beast/whatever) and it was as easy as printing a name & address.
Civil unions were accepted by the Feds long before the “Gay Marriage” abomination became Law. This begs the question: Why legalize the pseudo-’marriages’ of these misguided souls? What could possibly be gained by them? (Rhetorical question, you know the answer.)
Once again. outstanding post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.