So, you're saying you object to the Epistles written by St. Paul and believe he has no business teaching morality since in his past life he was a great sinner and persecutor of Christians who participated in the killing of St. Stephen?
A common tactic in histrionic, pilpul-like argumentation I've noticed is to take an extreme and extraordinary exception to a rule, and use that to judge a scenario far from exceptional, far from extraordinary, in order to make the rational opponent question the rational application of ordinary rules to ordinary scenarios.
We can agree, I hope, that St. Paul is a
singularly extraordinary example (the only true Apostle not among the Twelve called by Our Lord in his earthly ministry, but after His Resurrection). So why do we need to jump to him in the case of Voris - a man whom - I hope we can agree - is neither singular nor extraordinary? Ordinary, common-sense rules about recently active sodomites taking positions of leadership in the life of the Church ought to apply to him, no matter how much of an extraordinary Special Boy he may fancy himself to be.
What about the Church's policy against ordaining sodomitically-inclined men? Do you object? If not, then the same rationale should apply here. If you do - kindly explain yourself.
Topic: Michael Voris dissected (Read 8198 times)