Cardinal Pell, and a healthy dose of pelloscepticism ....

(Above: yep, it's frock Sunday).

Ferreting through the week old thoughts of Cardinal Pell in the Sunday Terror, it was a wonder to behold the way the cardinal was taken with the word coinage "homosceptic" (or if a septic tank, inclined to yankee spelling, homoskeptic).

It led the pond to contemplate other half-baked, half-arsed word coinages with which to cloak snide prejudice, like RCsceptic, or tykeosceptic if you will, or perhaps papalosceptic, or cardinal or pellosceptic, or perhaps transubstantiationosceptic, and certainly trinitarianismosceptic.

Back at ranch homoprejudice, Cardinal Pell explained in Homosceptics to the Terror's readers why the coinage means so much to him, not wondering whether he might be encouraging a form of logophobia, or fear of words.

(Golly, how we would have liked to introduce verbophobia into the discussion, or better still, sesquipedalophobia, aka hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, a fear of long words, or onomatophobia, a fear of hearing a certain word or name, or any of the other phobias celebrated in The Phobia List. Talk about coinages).

Back at ranch homofear, it seems Cardinal Pell has his knickers in a twist over the changing meaning of the word homophobia, and shows he, or his source, are adept users of wiki.

Here's how it appears in wiki:

The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay. (wiki it here).

And here's how it turns up in Pell's column:

When the term first appeared in a May 1969 edition of an American tabloid "Screw", homophobia meant a heterosexual man's fear that others might think him homosexual.

Uh huh. A subtle variation and distinction, but handy if you have a fear of the word "gay', commonly known as gayophobia.

Now it seems that "homophobia" has been appropriated, misused and abused:

Some homosexual extremists now define homophobia as a disrespect for, or hatred of, people who are homosexual; so that those who believe sexual activity should be confined within the marriage of a man and woman and that marriage should be protected by law are denounced as homophobes. They are not accused of fear, but of disrespect or hatred.

This tactic has been quite successful in entering into middle class opinion even beyond the inner-city and very rich suburbs, where political correctness rules.

Oh dear. Those nasty inner city and very rich politically correct suburbs at it again, ruining middle class opinion everywhere.

Sorry, time for a frock break, and a kit kat.

Ah, that's better. Hey ho, on we go:

Indeed it has become so successful that the meaning of the term has changed. Homophobia is now a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homo-sexual people. To avoid this charge people become defensive or fall silent or pay the price if they persist. In the so-called Conservative Party in Britain the Prime Minister David Cameron had sacked a candidate who opined that homosexuality was not normal behavior.

Well I don't know where the errant hyphen came from in that use of "homo-sexual people" - perhaps from the Sunday Terror's original layout - but I do confess it awoke a latent hypen-phobia in the pond.

And since when has the cardinal become an American like the Labor party and dropped the "u" from "behaviour", in the American spelling style? This produced concern that a kind of "up-u-phobia" might be spreading in the church ...

A bit like the "up u Davo" reference to the "so-called" UK Conservative party run by that naughty David Cameron, what with him writing a letter to Julia Gillard in support of climate science and actions related thereto:

Whatever it means homophobia is pretty bad. It could even be worse than being a climate change denier.

Two strikes for the Pellists.

Anyhoo, now it's time for the big reveal. There's not an original thought in the cardinal's thinking, and he acknowledges the source:

An English doctor Peter Saunders has suggested that those who believe sex outside marriage is wrong could describe themselves as homosceptics; as people who respect homosexuals do not hate but do not believe homosexual activity is appropriate.

Well if you want to go to the original fount of wisdom - unless you're fountophobic - you can head off to Saunders' I'm coming out as a "homosceptic".

But in the meantime can anybody explain how the word "homosceptic" is acceptable to those who believe sex outside marriage is wrong?

Are the only people who have sex outside marriage homosexual? Don't heterosexuals, and Catholic priests wanting to show their love of the children, have the occasional fling?

Shouldn't there then be a variant word ... like "heterosceptic"? Or perhaps "pedosceptic"?

Never mind, if you're determined to be stupid, and to be prejudiced, you'll always find a way, and Pell, channeling Saunders, finds a way:

Homosceptics would also be sceptical of the claims that homosexuality is fixed or genetically determined or a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour. They are also sceptical of the presuppositions that same sex attraction should always be welcomed and acted out or that those who wish to resist or eradicate such feelings are dangerously wrong.

Homosceptics are inclined to believe that many homosexual lobby claims are more driven by ideology than based on evidence.

Uh huh. Well we can see why Pellists are "scientosceptical", especially when invoking old fashioned taxonomies like 'race', or being flippant in a couple of words about extensive research into biology and sexual orientation.

As if somehow Pell isn't being driven by ideology or perhaps theology, and certainly not by consideration of evidence ...

Apologies. I see it's frock break time.

Almost enough to make you trainosceptic.

Not to worry. If we summon up the sinews, avoid incipient fountophobia, and head off to the original source of Pell's wisdom, this is how that bit of garbled gobbledegook orginally read:

I’d like to broaden this definition to include “being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement” such as the beliefs that:

Homosexuality is genetically determined
Homosexual orientation is always fixed
Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong

Oh okay, one last frock break.

Well that led the pond to consider how to broaden the definition of pelloscepticism to include “being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the Pellist movement”, such as the beliefs that:

Marriage to the church and to Jesus Christ by adult males in a singular chaste union is determined by god
Pedophilic straying from this orientation is always invisible, no matter evidence that in the past the church has had a fixed approach to the forgiveness and covering up of said pedophilia
Marriage to the church and to Jesus Christ isn't a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour, not when it can be considered a kind of personal eccentricity, which might be dressed up as a "spiritual calling" to a chaste spiritual marriage with absent trinitarian deities
Feelings of attraction to Jesus Christ and the church, and a chaste spiritual marriage to said personage and institution should be welcomed and acted upon
Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings for a chaste "brides and bridegrooms of Christ" lifestyle is always wrong

Encouraging heterosexuals to have nine children to look after them in old age, and bolster the church's income by regular tithing, and then send the tenth off to the church's recruitment and training agencies isn't so much a religious or a biological or marital necessity as a giant Ponzi scheme, which can lead to ponziphobia.

Such assertions would of course be mere vile prejudice, dressed up in fancy words, and high falutin' prejudice, with fanciful coinages designed to cloak said prejudices.

It would be simpler to say that the pond doesn't think much of the mystical mumbo jumbo and snake oil peddled by the RC church.

In the same way, it would, of course be more simple and honest to simply say "we in the church don't like poofters" and "we encourage others to dislike poofters", but sadly the days of such simple minded fear, hate and loathing mongering have now been eradicated by the politically correct middle class.

These days we have to dress up such simple, easily understood concepts with a welter of blather, designed to disguise how the Christian lobby's claims are more driven by ideology and warped theology, than based on evidence.

In turn this leads to clever and cunning ploys, such as inking climate scepticism to euro scepticism to a brand spanking new word homoscepticism (perhaps not too much of the spanking if you notice Opus Dei lurking in the corner).

Meanwhile, you might wonder what Christ had to say about all this, seeing as he surrounded himself with twelve male apostles, never married, never had children (so they say), never apparently had sex (so they say), never had a brother (so they say), came upon the earth by way of a most peculiar sexual activity involving his mother, never spoke on the subject of homosexuality (never much talked about sex at all actually), and yet even in those long lost days a couple of thousand years ago, homosexually inclined people allegedly created by his father walked the earth, as they continue to walk the earth today ...

Perhaps he might have said:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Matthew 7:1-2

Perhaps he might have turned into a head banger, and grooved along to Corporate Avenger's lyrics:

Not saying that it's good,
Not saying that it's right,
But the Virgin Mary may have been
A hermaphorodite.

Motherfuckin' god!
Motherfuckin' god!
Motherfuckin' god!

God is good, God is great,
I think that he might be gay.

Not saying God is gay,
Not saying that at all.
But if Jesus Christ
was God and God
created all.
Then Jesus Christ
created the homosexual.
There might be a
little fag in us all.

Jesus Christ
Homosexual (repeat)

They say that God hates Fags,
They walk around so pissed.
Disguise their hate as love,
But have they thought of this.
He made us in his image,
Now listen to what I say.
Then it's a
possibility that Jesus
Christ was gay.

Jesus Christ
Homosexual (repeat)

Not saying God is gay,
Not saying that at all.
But if Jesus Christ
was God and God
created all.
Then Jesus Christ
created the homosexual.
There might be a
little fag in us all.
He made us in his image,
Now listen to what I say.
Then it's a
possibility that Jesus
Christ was gay.

Not saying that it's good,
Not saying that it's right,
But could the Virgin
Mary have been a
hermaphorodite?
She was with a child
without having a man?
And that's not the
only thing that I
don't understand.

Jesus Christ
Homosexual (repeat)

You can of course catch the song on YouTube here, but frankly, we like the lyrics better than the music.

It being Sunday, we'd prefer Ode to Joy, as conducted by that notorious homosexual Leonard Bernstein, who in his personal life and his professional career exemplified the contradictions endured by homosexuals living the lie of "don't ask, don't tell" , along with the petty snideries, cheap jokes, pathetic word coinages and pompous prejudices of all the Pellists who strode the earth before the most pompous Pellist of all came to scribble for the Sunday Terror ...